"•V. 


ri^' 


-15 


V 


/ 


,X 


SYSTEMATIC 


THEOLOaT. 


BY 

CHARLES  HODGE,  D.D., 

PROFESSOR  IN  THE   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY,    PRINCETON,   NEW  JERSEY. 


YOL.  II. 


NEW    YORK: 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER  AND  COMPANY. 

LONDON  AND  EDINBURGH:   T.  NELSON  AND  SONS. 
1872. 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1871,  by 

Charles  Scribner  and  Company, 
in  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress  at  Washington. 


RnrEKsicG,  cabibridoe; 

■  TBBBOTTPED    AND    PRINTED  BY 
H.   0.    HOUGHTON   AND   COMPANY. 


CONTENTS  OF  THE  SECOND  VOLUME. 


PAET   II. 

ANTHROPOLOGY. 
CHAPTER   I. 

ORIGIN     OF     MAX. 

FAOB 

§  1.  Scriptural  Doctrine 3 

§  2.  Anti- Scriptural  Theories 4 

Heathen  Doctrine  of  Spontaneous  Generation.  —  Modern  Doctrine 
of  Spontaneous  Generation  .  ' 5 

Theories  of  Development.  —  Lamarck  —  Vestiges  of  Creation.  — 
Darwin.  —  Remarks  on  the  Darwinian  Theory.  —  Atheistic.  — 
Mere  Hypothesis 19 

Theories  of  the  Universe.  —  Darwin.  —  J.  J.  Murphy.  —  Owen.  — 
Common  Doctrine.  —  Admitted  Difficulties  in  the  way  of  the 
Darwinian  Theory.  —  Sterility  of  Hybrids.  —  Geographical  Dis- 
tribution      ...........     29 

Pangenesis    ••.......••         32 

§  3.  Antiquity  of  Man 33 

Lake  Dwellings.  —  Fossil  Human  Remains. —  Human  Bones  found 
with  those  of  Extinct  Animals. —  Flint  Instruments.  —  Races  of 
Men.  —  Ancient  Monuments 39 


CHAPTER  H. 

NATURE    OF   MAN. 

§  1.  Scriptural  Doctrine 42 

Truths  assumed  in  Scriptures.  —  Relation  of  the  Soul  and  Body.  — 

Realistic  Dualism 46 

§  2.  Trichotomy 47 

Anti-Scriptural.  —  Doubtful  Passages 49 

§  3.  Realism 51 

Its  General  Character.  —  Generic  Humanity.  —  Objections  to  Real- 
ism. —  From  Consciousness.  —  Contrary  to  Scriptures.  —  Incon- 
sistent with  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  of  the  Person  of  Christ  60 
§4.  Another  Form  of  the  Realistic  Theory 61 


iv  CONTENTS   OF  THE   SECOND  VOLUME. 

CHAPTER  m. 

ORIGIN   OF   THE   SOUL. 

PAflB 

§  1.  Theory  of  Preexistence 65 

§  2.  Traducianism 68 

§  3.  Creationism 70 

Arguments  from  the  Nature  of  the  Soul 71 

§  4.  Concluding  Remarks 72 

CHAPTER  IV. 

UNITY  OK   THE   HUMAN   KACB. 

§  1.  Idea  of  Species 78 

General  Characteristics.  —  Definitions 79 

§  2.  Evidences  of  the  Identity  of  Species 82 

Organic  Structure.  —  Physiology.  —  Psychology       .         .         .         .85 

§3.  Application  of  these  Criteria  to  Man 86 

The  Evidence  Cumulative 88 

§  4.  Philological  and  Moral  Argument    .......  88 

Brotherhood  of  Man 90 

CHAPTER    V. 

ORIGINAL   STATE   OF   MAN. 

§  1.  Scriptural  Doctrine 92 

§  2.  Man  created  in  the  Image  of  God 96 

§  3.  Original  Righteousness 99 

§  4.  Dominion  over  the  Creatures 102 

§  5.  Doctrine  of  Romanists 103 

§  6.  Pelagian  and  Rationalistic  Doctrine 106 

Immanent  Dispositions  may  have  Moral  Character.  —  General 
Judgment  of  Men  on  this  Point.  —  Argument  fi'om  Scriptiu-e,  and 
from  the  Faith  of  the  Church.  —  The  Character  of  Dispositions 
depends  on  their  Nature.  —  Objections  considered.  —  Pelagians 
teach  that  Man  was  created  Mortal 115 

CHAPTER  VI. 

COVENANT   OF   WORKS. 

§  1.  God  made  a  Covenant  with  Adam 117 

§2.  The  Promise 118 

§3.  The  Condition 119 

§  4.  The  Penalty 120 

§5.  The  Parties 121 

§  6.  The  Perpetuity  of  the  Covenant 122 

CHAPTER  Vn. 

THE    FALL. 

Scriptural  Account.  —  The  Tree  of  Life.  —  The  Tree  of  Knowledge.  — 

The  Serpent.  — The  Temptation.  — Effects  of  the  First  Sin     .         .123 


CONTENTS  OF   THE  SECOND  VOLUME.  v 

CHAPTER  YUI. 

SIN. 

PAOB 

§  1.  Nature  of  the  Question 130 

§  2.  Philosophical  Theories 132 

Limitation  of  Being.  —  Leibnitz's  Theory.  —  Antagonism.  — 
Schleiermacher's  Theory.  —  The  Sensuous  Theory.  —  Selfish- 
ness   144 

Theological  Theories. 

§3.  Doctrine  of  the  Early  Church 150 

§  4.  Pelagian  Theory 152 

Arguments  against  it        ........         ,  155 

§  5.  Augustine's  Doctrine        .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .157 

Philosophical  Element  of  his  Doctrine.  —  Why  he  made  Sin  a 
Negation.  —  The  Moral  Element  of  his  Doctrine  .         .         .159 

§  6.  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome 164 

Diversity  of  Doctrine  in  the  Latin  Church.  —  Semi-Pelagians.  — 
Anselm.  —  Abelard.  —  Thomas  Aquinas.  —  The  Scotists     .         .  1 73 

Tridentine  Doctrine  on  Original  Sin 1 74 

The  true  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome       .         .         .         .         .177 

§  7.  Protestant  Doctrine  of  Sin 180 

Sin  a  specific  Evil.  —  Has  relation  to  Law.  —  That  Law  the  Law 
of  God.  —  Extent  of  the  Law's  Demands.  —  Sin  not  confined  to 
Acts  of  the  Will.  —  Consists  in  want  of  Conformity  to  the  Law 

of  God.  —  Includes  Guilt  and  Pollution 188 

§  8.  Effects  of  Adam's  Sin  on  his  Posterity 192 

§  9.  Immediate  Imputation 192 

Statement  of  the  Doctrine.  —  Ground  of  the  Imputation  of  Adam's 
Sin.  —  Adam  the  Federal  Head  of  his  Race.  —  The  Representa- 
tive Principle  in  the  Scriptures.  —  This  Principle  involved  in 
other   Doctrines. — Argument   from   Romans   v.   12-21.  —  From 

General  Consent.  —  Objections 204 

§  10.  Mediate  Imputation 205 

Origin  of  the  Doctrine  in  the  French  Church .  —  Held  by  Theolo- 
gians in  other  Churches. —  Objections.  —  Theory  of  Propagation  214 

§  11.  Pi-eexistence 214 

§  12.  Realistic  Theory         ..........  216 

President  Edwards'  Theory.  —  Proper  Realistic  Theory.  —  Objec- 
tions   219 

§  13.  Original  Sin 227 

Its  Nature.  —  Proof  of  the  Doctrine.  —  From  the  Universality  of 
Sin.  —  From  the  entire  Sinfulness  of  Man.  —  From  the  incor- 
rigible Nature  of  Sin.  —  From  its  early  Manifestations.  —  Eva^ 
sions  of  the  foregoing  Ai'guments.  —  Declarations  of  Scripture. 
—  Argument  from  the  necessity  of  Redemption. — From  the 
necessity  of  Regeneration. — From  Infant  Baptism.  —  From  the 
Universality  of  Death.  —  From  the  common  Consent  of  Christians  249 
Objections.  —  Men  responsible  only  for  Voluntary  Acts.  —  Incon- 


vi  CONTENTS  OF  THE   SECOND  VOLUME. 

PAOE 

sistent  ■with  the  justice  of  God.  —  Makes  God  the  Author  of  Sin. 

—  Inconsistent  with  Free  Agency 254 

§  14.  Seat  of  Original  Sin 254 

The  whole  Soul  its  Seat 255 

§  15.  Inability 257 

Doctrine  as  stated  in  the  Protestant  Symbols.  —  The  Nature  of  the 
Sinner's  Inability      .........       260 

Inability  not  mere  Disinclination.  —  Arises  from  the  want  of  Spir- 
itual Discernment.  —  Asserted  only  in  reference  to  "  Things  of 
the  Spirit."  —  In  what  sense  Natural.  —  In  what  sense  Moral.  — 
Objections  to  the  popular  Distinction  between  Natural  and  Moral 
Ability .265 

Proof  of  the  Doctrine 267 

The  Negative  Argument.  —  Involved  in  the  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin. 

—  Argument  from  the  Necessity  of  the  Spirit's  Influence.  —  From 
Experience. —  Objections.  —  Inconsistent  with  Moral  Obligation. 

—  Destroys  the  Motives  to  Exertion.  —  Encourages  Delay        .       276 

CHAPTER  IX. 

FREE    AGENCY. 

§  1.  Different  Theories  of  the  Will 280 

Necessity.  —  Contingency.  —  Certainty        .....       284 
§  2.  Definition  of  Terms 288 

Will.  —  Motive.  —  Cause.  —  Liberty.  —  Liberty  and  Ability. —  Self- 
determination  and  Self-determination  of  the  Will     .         .         .       294 
§  3.  Certainty  consistent  with  Liberty        .......  295 

Points  of  Agreement.  —  Arguments  for  the  Doctrine  of  Certainty.  — 
From  the  Foreknowledge  of  God.  —  From  Foreordination.  — 
From  Providence.  —  From  the  Doctrines  of  Grace.  —  From  Con- 
sciousness. —  From  the  Moi-al  Character  of  Volitions.  —  From 
the  Rational  Nature  of  Man.  —  From  the  Doctrine  of  Sufficient 
Cause 306 


PART  III. 

SOTERIOLOGY. 

CHAPTER  I. 

PLAN   OF    SALVATION. 

§  1.  God  has  such  a  Plan 313 

Importance  of  knowing  it.  —  Means  of  knowing  it       .         .         .  315 

§  2.  Supralapsarianism 316 

§  3.  Infralapsarianism 319 

§  4.  Hypothetical  Redemption 321 

Objections  to  that  Scheme 323 

§  5.  The  Lutheran  Doctrine  as  to  the  Plan  of  Salvation     ....  324 

§  6.  The  Remonstrant  Doctrine 327 


CONTENTS   OF  THE   SECOND  VOLUME.  vii 


PAOE 


§  7.  The  Wesleyaa  Doctrine 329 

§  8.  The  Augustinian  Doctrine 331 

Preliminary  Remarks.  —  Statement  of  the  Doctrine.  —  Proof  of 
the  Doctrine 334 

Argument  from  the  Facts  of  Providence.  —  From  the  Facts  of  Scrip- 
ture   339 

The  Relation  of  God  to  his  Rational  Creatures.  —  Man  a  Fallen 
Race.  —  Work  of  the  Spirit.  —  Election  is  to  Holiness.  —  Gra- 
tuitous Nature  of  Salvation.  —  Paul's  Argument  in  the  Ninth 
Chapter  of  Romans.  —  Argument  from  Experience      .         .         .  344 

Express  Declarations  of  Scripture.  —  The  Words  of  Jesus           .       346 
§  9.  Objections  to  the  Augustinian  Doctrine 349 

The  Objections  shown  to  bear  against  the  Providence  of  God.  — 
Founded  on  our  Ignorance.  —  Same  Objections  urged  against  the 
Teachings  of  the  Apostles 352 

CHAPTER  n. 

COVENANT   OF   GRACE. 

§  1.  The  Plan  of  Salvation  is  a  Covenant 354 

§  2.  Different  Views  of  the  Nature  of  that  Covenant      ....       355 
Pelagian  View.  —  Remonstrant  View.  —  Wesleyan  Arminian  View. 

—  Lutheran  View.  —  Augustinian  Doctrine          ....  356 
§  3.  Parties  to  the  Covenant 357 

Disthiction  between  the  Covenant  of  Redemption  and  the  Covenant 

of  Grace       ...  358 

§  4.  Covenant  of  Redemption 359 

§  5.  Covenant  of  Grace 362 

§  6.  Identity  of  the  Covenant  under  all  Dispensations    ....       366 

Promise  of  Eternal  Life  made  before  the  Advent  of  Christ.  —  Christ 
the  Redeemer  under  all  Dispensations.  —  Faith  the  Condition  of 
Salvation  from  the  Beginning        .         .         .         •         •         •         .371 
§  7.  Different  Dispensations    .         .         .         .         .         .         .         •         .373 

From  Adam  to  Abraham.  —  Abraham  to  Moses.  —  Moses  to  Christ. 

—  The  Gospel  Dispensation         .         .         .         .        •         •         .376 

CHAPTER  m. 

THE    PERSON    OP    CHRIST. 

§  1.  Preliminary  Remarks 378 

§2.  Scriptural  Facts  concerning  the  Person  of  Christ        .         ...         .  380 
He  is  truly  Man.  —  He  is  truly  God.  —  He  is  one  Person    .         .       380 
Proof  of  the  Doctrine.  —  Proof  of  the  several  Points  separately.  — 
From  the  current  Representations  of  Scripture.  —  From  particu- 
lar Passages  of  Scripture.  —  St.  John's  Gospel  i.  1-14  —  1  John  i. 
1_3.  —  Romans  i.  2-5.  —  1  Timothy  iii.  16.  —  Philippians  ii.  6-11. 

—  Hebrews  ii.  14      .         .         .         .         .         .         •         •         •       386 

§  3.  The  Hypostatical  Union 887 

Two  Natures  in  Christ.  —  INIeaning  of  the  Word  Nature.  —  Two 
Natures  united  but   not  confounded.  —  The    Attributes   of  one 


viii  CONTENTS   OF  THE   SECOND  VOLUME. 

FAOB 

Nature  not  transferred  to  the  other.  —  The  Union  is  a  Personal 
Union        ...........       390 

§  4.  Consequences  of  the  Ilypostatical  Union 392 

Communion  of  Attributes.  —  The  Acts  of  Christ.  —  The  Man  Christ 
Jesus  the  Object  of  Worship.  —  Christ  can  sympathize  with  his 
People.  —  The  Incarnate  Logos  the  Source  of  Life.  —  The  Ex- 
altation of  the  Human  Nature  of  Christ 397 

§5.  EiToneous  Doctrines  on  the  Person  of  Christ.  —  Ebionites.  —  Gnos- 
tics. —  Apollinarian  Doctrine.  —  Nestorianism.  —  Eutychianism. 

—  Monothelite  Controversy 404 

§  6.  Doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches 405 

§  7.  Lutheran  Doctrine 407 

Different  Views  among  the  Lutherans.  —  Remarks  on  the  Lutheran 

Doctrine 418 

§  8.  Later  Forms  of  the  Doctrine 418 

Socinianism.  —  Swedenborg.  —  Dr.   Isaac   Watts.  —  Objections  to 

Dr.  Watts'  Theory 427 

§9.  Modern  Forms  of  the  Doctrine 428 

Pantheistical  Christology.  —  Theistical  Christology.  —  The  Doc- 
trine of  Kenosis.  —  Ebrard        .......       434 

Gess 435 

Remarks  on  the  Doctrine  of  Kenosis     ......       437 

Schleiermacher's  Christology  .         .         •         .         .         .         .         .441 

Objections  to  Schleiermacher's  Theory.  —  Founded  on  Pantheisti- 
cal Principles.  —  Involves  Rejection  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity. —  False  Anthropology.  —  Perverts  the  Plan  of  Salvation   .       450 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   MEDIATORIAL    WORK   OF   CHRIST. 

§  1.  Christ  the  only  Mediator 455 

§  2.  Qualifications  for  the  Work 456 

§  3.  Threefold  Office  of  Christ 459 

CHAPTER  V. 

PROPHETIC     OFFICE. 

§  1.  Its  Nature 462 

§  2.  How  Christ  executes  the  Office  of  a  Prophet 463 

CHAPTER  VL 

PRIESTLY   OFFICE. 

§1.  Christ  is  truly  a  Priest 464 

§  2.  Christ  is  our  only  Priest 466 

§3.  Definition  of  Terms 468 

Atonement.  —  Satisfaction.  —  Penalty.  —  Vicarious.  —  Guilt.  —  Re- 
demption.—  E.xpiation.  —  Propitiation 478 


CONTENTS   OF   THE   SECOND   VOLUME.  IX 

a  CHAPTER  VH. 

SATISFACTION    OF    CHRIST. 

PAGE 

§  1.  Statement  of  the  Doctrine 480 

§  2.  The  Sense  in  which  the  Work  of  Christ  was  a  Satisfaction        .        .  482 
§  3.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Scotists  and  Remonstrants       ....       485 

§  4.  Christ's  Satisfaction  rendered  to  Justice 489 

§  5.  Christ's  Work  a  Satisfaction  to  Law        ......       493 

§  6.  Proof  of  the  Doctrine  as  above  stated 495 

Argument  from  Christ's  Priestly  Office.  —  From  the  Sacrificial 
Character  of  His  Death.  —  Proof  of  the  Expiatory  Character  of 
the  Sacrifices  for  Sin.  —  Argument  from  the  Fifty-third  Chapter 
of  Isaiah.  —  Passages  in  the  New  Testament  in  which  Christ's 
"Work  is  set  forth  as  a  Sacrifice,  Romans  iii.  25  ;  Hebrews  x.  10  ; 

1  John  ii.  2  ;  1  Peter  ii.  24 512 

Argument  from  the  Nature  of  Redemption 516 

Redemption  from  the  Penalty  of  the  Law.  —  From  the  Law  itself. 

—  From  the  Power  of  Sin.  —  From  the  Power  of  Satan.  —  Final 
Redemption  from  all  Evil.  —  Argument  from  Related  Doctrines     520 

Argument  from  Religious  Experience  of  Believers  ....  523 
§  7.  Objections 527 

Philosophical  Objections.  —  Objections  drawn  from  the  Feelings. — 
Moral  Objections. —  Objections  urged  by  the  Modern  German 
Theologians  ..........  532 

Answer  to  the  Theory  of  these  Writers        .....       535 

Popular  Objections 539 

CHAPTER  Vin. 

FOR    WHOM    DID    CHRIST    DIE? 

§  1.  State  of  the  Question 544 

§2.  Proof  of  the  Augustinian  Doctrine 546 

1.  From  the  Nature  of  the  Covenant  of  Redemption.  —  2.  Election. 

—  3.  Express  Declaration  of  the  Scriptures.  —  4.  From  the 
Special  Love  of  God.  —  5.  From  the  Believer's  Union  with 
Christ.  —  6.  From  the  Litercession  of  Christ.  —  7.  Church  Doc- 
trine embraces  all  the  Facts  of  the  Case  553 

Objections.  —  From  the  Universal  Offer  of  the  Gospel.  —  From  cer- 
tain Passages  of  Scripture 558 

CHAPTER  IX. 

THEORIES  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

§  1.  The  Orthodox  View 563 

§  2.  Doctrine  of  some  of  the  Early  Fathers 564 

§  3.  Moral  Theory 566 

Objections  to  that  Theory 571 

§4.  Governmental  Theory 573 

Remonstrant  Doctrine      .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .575 


X  CONTENTS   OF   THE   SECOND  VOLmiE. 

PAGE 

Supcrnaturalists  ........••       576 

Objections  to  Governmental  Theory 578 

§  5.  Mystical  Theory 581 

Early  Mystics. — Mystics  of  the  Time  of  the  Reformation. —  Osian- 
der.  —  Schwenkfeld.  —  Oetinger.  —  The  Modern  Views       .         .  589 

§  6.  Concluding  Remarks 589 

CHAPTER    X. 

INTERCESSION    OF   CHRIST. 

§  1.  Christ  our  Intercessor 592 

§2.  Nature  of  his  Intercession 593 

§  3.  Its  Objects  ...  594 

§  4.  The  Intercession  of  Saints 594 

CHAPTER  XI. 

KINGLY   OFFICE    OF   CHRIST. 

§  1.  The  Church  the  Kingdom  of  God 596 

§  2.  Christ  truly  a  King 597 

§  3.  Nature  of  the  Kingdom  of  Christ 599 

His  Dominion  over  the  Universe.  —  His  Spiritual  Kingdom.  —  His 
Visible  Kingdom.  —  Nature  of  that  Kingdom           .         .         .       604 
§  4.  The  Kingdom  of  Glory 608 

CHAPTER  XII. 

THE    HUMILIATION    OP    CHRIST. 

§  1.  Includes  his  Incarnation      .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .610 

§  2.  His  Being  made  under  the  Law 612 

§  3.  His  Sufferings  and  Death    .........  614 

§  4.  His  Enduring  the  Wrath  of  God 614 

§  5.  His  Death  and  Bm-ial  .........  615 

The  "Descensus  ad  Inferos."  —  The  Lutheran  and  Modern  Doc- 
trines of  the  Humiliation  of  Christ  ......       621 

CHAPTER   Xm. 

THE    EXALTATION    OF    CHRIST. 

§  1.  His  Resurrection 626 

§  2.  His  Ascension 630 

§  3.  His  Session  at  the  Right  Hand  of  God 635 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

VOCATION. 

§  1.  Scriptural  Usage  of  the  Word 639 

§  2.  External  Call 641 

§  3.  Common  Grace         ..........       654 

Lutheran  Doctrine.  —  Rationalistic  Doctrine.  .         .         .         .657 

Proof  of  the  Inward  Call  of  the   Spirit  as  distinct  from  the  Truth    660 


CONTENTS  OF  THE   SECOND   VOLUME.  xi 

PA08 

This  Influence  may  be  -without  the  Word.  —  The  Work  of  the 

Spirit  distinct  from  Providential  Efficiency           •         .         .         .665 
An  Influence  of  the  Spirit  Common  to  all  Men.  —  Effects  of  Com- 
mon Grace 670 

§  4.  Efficacious  Grace  .........  675 

Why  Efficacious.  —  Not  simply  ah  eventu.  —  Not  from  its  Congruity  677 

The  Augustinian  Doctrine 680 

Statement  of  the  Doctrine.  —  The  Main  Principle  involved  .       682 

It  is  the  Almighty  Power  of  God.  —  Hence  1.  It  is  Mysterious  and 
Peculiar.  2.  Distinct  from  Common  Grace.  3.  Distinct  from 
Moral  Suasion.     4.  Acts  immediately.     In  what  Sense  Physical. 

5.  It  is  Irresistible.  6.  The  Soul  is  Passive  in  Regeneration. 
7.  Regeneration  Instantaneous.  8.  It  is  an  Act  of  Sovereign 
Grace •  688 

§5.  Proof  of  the  Doctrine 689 

1.  Common  Consent.  2.  Analogy.  3.  Ephesians  iii.  17,  19. 
4.  General  Teachings  of  Scripture.     5.  Nature  of  Regeneration. 

6.  Argument  from  related  Doctrines.     7.  From  Experience        .  706 

§  6.  Objections 709 

§  7.  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  Grace 710 

Doctrine  of  the  Early  Church.  —  Pelagian  Doctrine  —  Semi-Pe- 
lagian. —  Scholastic  Period.  —  Synergistic  Controversy.  —  Con- 
troversies in  the  Reformed  Church.  —  Hypothetical  Universalism. 
—  Supernaturalism  and  Rationalism         ...  .       728 


SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 


PART    II. 

ANTHROPOLOGY. 


SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 


PART  IL  — ANTHROPOLOGY. 

Having  considered  the  doctrines  which  concern  the  nature  of 
God  and  his  relation  to  the  world,  we  come  now  to  those  which 
concern  man ;  his  origin,  nature,  primitive  state,  probation,  and 
apostasy  ;  which  last  subject  includes  the  question  as  to  the  nature 
of  sin  ;  and  the  effects  of  Adam's  first  sin  upon  himself  and  upon 
his  posterity.  These  subjects  constitute  the  department  of  Anthro- 
pology. 

CHAPTER  I. 

ORIGIN     OF     MAN. 

§  1.  Scriptural  Doctrine. 

The  Scriptural  account  of  the  origin  of  man  is  contained  in  Gen- 
esis i.  26,  27,  "  And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image, 
after  our  likeness :  and  let  them  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of 
the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle,  and  over 
all  the  earth,  and  over  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth  upon 
the  earth.  So  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of 
God  created  He  him  ;  male  and  female  created  He  them."  And 
Gen.  ii.  7,  "  And  the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life ;  and  man 
became  a  living  soul." 

Two  things  are  included  in  this  account ;  first  that  man's  body 
was  formed  by  the  immediate  intervention  of  God.  It  did  not 
grow  ;  nor  was  it  produced  by  any  process  of  development.  Sec- 
ondly, the  soul  was  derived  from  God.  He  breathed  into  man 
"the  breath  of  life,"  that  is,  that  life  which  constituted  him  a  man, 
a  living  creature  bearing  the  image  of  God. 

Many  have  inferred  from  tliis  language  that  the  soul  is  an  ema- 
nation from  the  divine  essence  ;  particula  spiritus  divini  in  cor- 
pore  inclusa.     This  idea  was  strenuously  resisted  by  the  Christian 


4  PART   11.     Cii.  I.  — ORIGIN   OF  MAN. 

fathers,  and  rejected  by  the  Church,  as  inconsistent  with  the  na- 
ture of  God.  It  assumes  that  the  divine  essence  is  capable  of 
division  ;  that  his  essence  can  be  communicated  without  his  attri- 
butes, and  tliat  it  can  be  degraded  as  the  souls  of  fallen  men  are 
degraded.  (See  Delitzsch's  "  Biblical  Psychology  "  in  T.  and  T. 
Clark's  "  Foreign  Library,"  and  Auberlen  in  Herzog's  "  Encyclo- 
piidie,"  article  "  Geist  der  Menschen.") 

§  2.     Anti- Scrij^tural  Theories. 

Heathen  Doctrine  of  Spontaneous  G-eneration. 

The  Scriptural  doctrine  is  opposed  to  the  doctrine  held  by  many 
of  the  ancients,  that  man  is  a  spontaneous  production  of  the  earth. 
Many  of  them  claimed  to  be  yr^ycvei?,  amoxOov^^,  terrigena.  The 
eartli  was  assumed  to  be  pregnant  with  the  germs  of  all  living 
organisms,  which  were  quickened  into  life  under  favoui'able  circum- 
stances ;  or  it  was  regarded  as  instinct  with  a  productive  life  to 
which  is  to  be  referred  the  origin  of  all  the  plants  and  animals 
living  on  its  surface.  To  this  primitive  doctrine  of  antiquity,  mod- 
ern philosophy  and  science,  in  some  of  their  forms,  have  returned. 
Those  who  deny  the  existence  of  a  personal  God,  distinct  from  the 
world,  must  of  course  deny  the  doctrine  of  a  creation  ex  nihilo  and 
consequently  of  the  creation  of  man.  The  theological  view  as  to 
the  origin  of  man,  says  Strauss,  "  rejects  the  standpoint  of  natural 
philosophy  and  of  science  in  general.  These  do  not  admit  of  the 
immediate  intervention  of  divine  causation.  God  created  man,  not 
as  such,  or,  '  quatenus  infinitus  est,  sed  quatenus  per  elementa 
nascentis  telluris  expllcatur.'  This  is  the  view  which  the  Greek 
and  Roman  philosophers,  in  a  very  crude  form  indeed,  presented, 
and  against  which  the  fathers  of  the  Christian  Church  earnestly 
contended,  but  which  is  now  the  unanimous  judgment  of  natural 
science  as  well  as  of  philosophy."  ^  To  the  objection  that  the  eartli 
no  longer  spontaneously  produces  men  and  irrational  animals,  it  is 
answered  that  many  things  happened  formerly  that  do  not  happen 
in  the  present  state  of  the  world.  To  the  still  more  obvious  ob- 
jection tliat  an  infant  man  must  have  perished  without  a  mother's 
care,  it  is  answered  that  the  infant  floated  in  the  ocean  of  its  birth, 
enveloped  in  a  covering,  until  it  reached  the  development  of  a  cliild 
two  years  old ;  or  it  is  said  that  philosophy  can  only  establish  the 
general  fact  as  to  the  way  in  which  the  human  race  originated,  but 
cannot  be  required  to  explain  all  the  details. 

1  Dogmatih,  vol.  i.  p.  680. 


§2.]  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL   THEORIES.  5 

Modern  Doctrine  of  Spontaneous  Greneration. 

Although  Strauss  greatly  exaggerates  when  he  says  that  men 
of  science  in  our  day  are  unanimous  in  supporting  the  doctrine  of 
spontaneous  generation,  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  a  large  class  of 
naturalists,  especially  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  are  in  favour 
of  that  doctrine.  Professor  Huxley,  in  his  discourse  on  the  "  Physi- 
cal Basis  of  Life,"  lends  to  it  the  whole  weight  of  his  authority. 
He  does  not  indeed  expressly  teach  that  dead  matter  becomes 
active  without  being  subject  to  the  influence  of  previous  living 
matter  ;  but  his  whole  paper  is  designed  to  show  that  life  is  the 
result  of  the  peculiar  arrangement  of  the  molecules  of  matter. 
His  doctrine  is  that  "  the  matter  of  life  is  composed  of  ordinary 
matter,  differing  from  it  only  in  the  manner  in  which  its  atoms  are 
aggregated."^  "If  the  properties  of  water,"  he  says,  "may  be 
properly  said  to  result  from  the  nature  and  disposition  of  its  com- 
ponent molecules,  I  can  find  no  intelligible  ground  for  refusing  to 
say  that  the  properties  of  protoplasm  result  from  the  nature  and 
disposition  of  its  molecules."  ^  In  his  address  before  the  British 
Association,  he  savs  that  if  he  could  look  back  far  enouo;h  into  the 
past  he  siiould  expect  to  see  "  the  evolution  of  living  protoplasm 
from  not  living  matter."  And  although  that  address  is  devoted  to 
showing  that  spontaneous  generation,  or  Abiogenesis,  as  it  is  called, 
has  never  been  proved,  he  says,  "  I  must  cai*efully  guard  myself 
against  the  supposition  that  I  intend  to  suggest  that  no  such  thing 
as  Abiogenesis  has  ever  taken  place  in  the  past  or  ever  will  take 
place  in  the  future.  With  organic  chemistry,  molecular  physics, 
and  physiology  yet  in  their  infancy,  and  every  day  making  pro- 
digious strides,  I  think  it  would  be  the  height  of  presumption  for 
any  man  to  say  that  the  conditions  under  which  matter  assumes 
the  properties  we  call  '  vital,'  may  not  some  day  be  artificially 
brought  together."  ^  All  this  supposes  that  life  is  the  product  of 
physical  causes  ;  that  all  that  is  requisite  for  its  production  is  "  to 
bring  together"  the  necessary  conditions. 

Mr.  Mivart,  while  opposing  Mr.  Darwin's  theory,  not  only 
maintains  that  the  doctrine  of  evolution  is  "  far  from  any  necessary 
opposition  to  the  most  orthodox  theology,"  but  adds  that  "  the 
same  may  be  said  of  spontaneous  generation."  *     As  chemists  have 

1  Lay  Sermons  and  Addresses,  London,  1870,  p.  144. 

2  Jbld.  p.  151. 

8  Athenceum,  September  17,  1870,  p.  376. 

*  Genesis  of  Species,  by  St.  George  Mivart,  F.  R.  S.  p.  266. 


6  PART  n.    ch.  I.  — origin  of  man. 

succeeded  in  producing  urea,  which  is  an  animal  product,  he  thinks 
it  not  unreasonable  that  they  may  produce  a  fish. 

But  while  there  is  a  class  of  naturalists  who  maintain  the  doctrine 
of  spontaneous  generation,  the  great  body  even  of  those  who  are 
the  most  advanced  admit  that  omne  vivum  ex  vivo,  so  far  as  science 
yet  knows,  is  an  established  law  of  nature.  To  demonstrate  this 
is  the  object  of  Professor  Huxley's  important  address  just  referred 
to,  delivered  before  the  British  Association  in  September,  1870. 
Two  hundred  years  ago,  he  tells  us,  it  was  commonly  taken  for 
granted  that  the  insects  which  made  their  appearance  in  decaying 
animal  and  vegetable  substances  were  spontaneously  produced. 
Redi,  however,  an  Italian  naturalist,  about  the  middle  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  proved  that  if  such  decaying  matter  were  protected 
by  a  piece  of  gauze  admitting  the  air  but  excluding  flies,  no  such 
insects  made  their  appearance.  "  Thus,  the  hj'pothesis  that  living 
matter  always  arises  by  the  agency  of  preexisting  living  matter, 
took  definite  shape  ;  and  had  henceforward  a  right  to  be  con- 
sidered and  a  claim  to  be  refuted,  in  each  particular  case,  before 
the  production  of  living  matter  in  any  other  way  could  be  admitted 
by  careful  reasoners."  ^  This  conclusion  has  been  more  and  more 
definitely  settled  by  all  the  investigations  and  experiments  which 
have  been  prosecuted  from  that  day  to  this.  It  has  been  proved 
that  even  the  infusorial  animalcules,  which  the  most  powerful  micro- 
scopes are  necessary  to  detect,  never  make  their  appearance  when 
all  preexisting  living  germs  have  been  carefully  excluded.  These 
experiments,  prosecuted  on  the  very  verge  of  nonentity,  having 
for  their  subject-matter  things  so  minute  as  to  render  it  doubtful 
whether  they  were  anything  or  nothing,  and  still  more  uncertain 
whether  they  were  living  or  dead,  are  reviewed  in  chronological 
order  by  Professor  Huxley,  and  the  conclusion  to  which  they  lead 
fully  established.^  This  is  confirmed  by  daily  experience.  Meat, 
vegetables,  and  fruits  are  preserved  to  the  extent  of  hundreds  of 
tons  every  year.  "  The  matters  to  be  preserved  are  well  boiled 
in  a  tin  case  provided  with  a  small  hole,  and  this  hole  is  soldered 
up  when  all  the  air  in  the  case  has  been  replaced  by  steam.  By 
this  method  they  may  be  kept  for  years,  without  putrefying,  fer- 
menting, or  getting  mouldy.  Now  this  is  not  because  oxygen  is 
excluded,  inasmuch  as  it  is  now  proved  that  free  oxygen  is  not 
necessary  for  either  fermentation  or  putrefaction.    It  is  not  because 

1  AthsTusum,  September  17,  1870,  p.  374. 

*  What  Dr.  Charlton  Bastian,  who  contested  the  conclusions  of  Professor  Huxley,  took  to 
be  living  organisms,  turned  out  to  be  nothing  but  minute  follicles  of  glass. 


§  2.]  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL   THEORIES.  7 

the  tins  are  exhausted  of  air,  for  Vibriones  and  Bacteria  live,  as 
Pasteur  has  shown,  without  air  or  free  oxygen.  It  is  not  because 
the  boiled  meats  or  vegetables  are  not  putrescible  or  fermentable, 
as  those  who  have  had  the  misfortune  to  be  in  a  ship  supplied  with 
unskilfully  closed  tins  well  know.  What  is  it,  therefore,  but  the 
exclusion  of  germs  ?  I  think  the  Abiogenists  are  bound  to  answer 
this  question  before  they  ask  us  to  consider  new  experiments  of 
precisely  the  same  order."  ^ 

But  admitting  that  life  is  always  derived  from  life,  the  question 
still  remains,  Whether  one  kind  of  life  may  not  give  rise  to  life  of  a 
different  kind  ?  It  was  long  supposed  that  parasites  derived  their 
life  from  the  plant  or  animal  in  which  they  live.  And  what  is 
more  to  the  point,  it  is  a  matter  of  familiar  experience  "  that  mere 
pressure  on  the  skin  will  give  rise  to  a  corn  "  which  seems  to  have 
a  life  of  its  own ;  and  that  tumours  are  often  developed  in  the  body 
which  acquire,  as  in  the  case  of  cancer,  the  power  of  multiplication 
and  reproduction.  In  the  case  of  vaccination,  also,  a  minute  par- 
ticle of  matter  is  introduced  under  the  skin.  The  result  is  a  vesicle 
distended  with  vaccine  matter  "  in  quantity  a  hundred  or  a  thou- 
sand-fold that  which  was  originally  inserted."  Whence  did  it 
come  ?  Professor  Huxley  tells  us  that  it  has  been  proved  that  "  the 
active  element  in  the  vaccine  lymph  is  non-diffusible,  and  consists 
of  minute  particles  not  exceeding  a  o  o  o  o  of  an  inch  in  diameter, 
which  are  made  visible  in  the  lymph  by  the  microscope.  Similar 
experiments  have  proved  that  two  of  the  most  destructive  of  epizo- 
otic diseases,  sheep-pox  and  glanders,  are  also  dependent  for  their 
existence  and  their  propagation  upon  extremely  small  living  solid 
particles,  to  which  the  title  of  microzymes  is  applied."  The  ques- 
tion, he  says,  arises  whether  these  particles  are  the  result  of 
Homogenesis,  or  of  Xenogenesis,  i.  e.,  Are  they  produced  by  pi-e- 
existing  living  particles  of  the  same  kind  ?  or,  Are  they  a  modifi- 
cation of  the  tissues  of  the  bodies  in  which  they  are  found  ?  The 
decision  of  this  question  has  proved  to  be  a  matter  of  vast  practical 
importance.  Some  years  since  diseases  attacked  the  grape-vine 
and  the  silk-worm  in  France,  which  threatened  to  destroy  two  of 
the  most  productive  branches  of  industry  in  that  country.  The 
direct  loss  to  France  from  the  silk-worm  disease  alone,  in  the  course 
of  seventeen  years,  is  estimated  at  two  hundred  and  fifty  millions 
of  dollars.  It  was  discovered  that  these  diseases  of  the  vine  and 
worm,  which  were  both  infectious  and  contagious,  were  due  to  liv- 
ing organisms,  by  which  they  were  propagated  and  extended.     It 

-  Huxley's  Address,  as  reported  in  the  London  Aihenaum,  September  17, 1870,  p.  376. 


8  PART  II.     Ch.  I.— ORIGIN    OF  MAN. 

became  a  matter  of  the  last  importance  to  determine  whether  these 
living  particles  propagated  themselves,  or  whether  they  were  pro- 
duced by  the  morbid  action  of  the  plant  or  animal.  M.  Pasteur, 
the  eminent  naturalist,  sent  by  the  French  government  to  investi- 
gate the  matter,  after  laborious  research  decided  that  they  were 
independent  organisms  propagating  themselves  and  multiplying 
with  astonishing  rapidity.  "  Guided  by  that  theory,  he  has  devised 
a  method  of  extirpating  the  disease,  which  has  proved  to  be  com- 
pletely successful  wherever  it  has  been  properly  carried  out."  ^ 
Professor  Huxley  closes  his  address  by  saying  that  he  had  invited 
his  audience  to  follow  him  "  in  an  attempt  to  trace  the  path  which 
has  been  followed  by  a  scientific  idea,  in  its  slow  progress  from  the 
position  of  a  probable  hypothesis  to  that  of  an  established  law  of 
nature."  Biogenesis,  then,  according  to  Huxley,  is  an  established 
law  of  nature.^ 

Professor  Tyndall  deals  with  this  subject  in  his  lecture  delivered 
in  September,  1870,  on  "  The  Scientific  Uses  of  the  Imagination." 
He  says  that  the  question  concerning  the  origin  of  life  is.  Whether 
it  is  due  to  a  creative  fiat,  '  Let  life  be  ?  '  or  to  a  process  of  evolu- 
tion ?  Was  it  potentially  in  matter  from  the  beginning?  or,  Was 
it  inserted  at  a  later  period  ?  However  the  convictions  here  or 
there  may  be  influenced,  he  says,  "  the  process  must  be  slow 
which  commends  the  hypothesis  of  natural  evolution  to  the  public 
mind.  For  what  are  the  core  and  essence  of  this  hypothesis  ? 
Strip  it  naked,  and  you  stand  face  to  face  with  the  notion  that 
not  alone  the  more  ignoble  forms  of  animalcular  or  animal  life, 
not  alone  the  nobler  forms  of  the  horse  and  lion,  not  alone  the 

1  London  Athenteum,  September  17,  1870,  p.  378.  In  view  of  the  facts  stated  in  the  text. 
Professor  Huxlej-  asks,  "  How  can  we  over-estimate  the  value  of  ihat  knowledge  of  the  nature 
of  epidemic  and  epizootic  diseases,  and,  consequently,  of  the  means  of  checking  or  eradi- 
cating them,  the  dawn  of  which  has  assuredly  commenced  ?  Looking  back  no  further  than 
ten  years,  it  is  possible  to  select  three  (1863,  1864,  and  1869)  in  which  the  total  number 
of  deaths  from  scarlet  fever  alone  amounted  to  ninety  thousand.     That  is  the  return  of 

killed,  the  maimed  and  disabled  being  left  out  of  sight The  facts  which  I  have 

placed  before  you  must  leave  the  least  sanguine  without  a  doubt  that  the  nature  and  causes 
of  this  scourge  will  one  day  be  as  well  understood  as  those  of  the  P«5brine  (the  silk-worm 
disease)  are  now  ;  and  that  the  long-suffered  massacre  of  our  innocents  will  come  to  an 
end." 

2  In  quoting  Professor  Huxley  as  an  authority  on  both  sides  of  the  question  of  spontane- 
ous generation,  no  injustice  is  done  that  distinguished  naturalist.  He  wi-hes  to  believe  that 
doctrine.  His  principles  lead  to  that  conclusion.  But,  as  a  question  of  scientific  fact,  he  is 
constrained  fo  admit  that  all  the  evidence  is  against  it.  He,  therefore,  does  not  believe  it, 
although  he  thinks  it  may  be  true.  Hence  Mr.  Mivart  says  that  Professors  Huxley  and 
Tyndall,  while  they  dissent  from  Dr.  Bastian's  conclusions  in  favour  of  spontaneous  genera- 
tion, ueverilu-less  "agree  with  him  in  principle,  though  they  limit  the  evolution  of  the 
organic  world  from  the  inorganic  to  a  very  remote  period  of  the  woijil's  history."  Genesis  of 
Species,  p.  266,  note. 


§2.]  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL   THEORIES.  9 

exquisite  and  wonderful  mechanism  of  the  human  body,  but  that 
the  human  mind  itself — emotion,  intellect,  will,  and  all  their 
phenomena  —  were  once  latent  in  a  fiery  cloud.  Surely  the  mere 
statement  of  such  a  notion  is  more  than  a  refutation.  I  do  not 
think  that  any  holder  of  the  evolution  hypothesis  would  say  that  I 
overstate  it  or  overstrain  it  in  any  way.  I  merely  strip  it  of  all 
vagueness,  and  bring  before  you,  unclothed  and  unvarnished,  the 
notions  by  which  it  must  stand  or  fall.  Surely  these  notions  rep- 
resent an  absurdity  too  monstrous  to  be  entertained  .by  any  sane 
mind."  ^  Professor  Tyndall,  however,  as  well  as  Professor  Hux- 
ley, is  on  both  sides  of  this  question.  Materialism,  with  its  doctrine 
of  spontaneous  generation,  is  thus  monstrous  and  absurd,  only  on 
tlie  assumption  that  matter  is  matter.  If  you  only  spiritualize 
matter  until  it  becomes  mind,  the  absurdity  disappears.  And  so 
do  materialism,  and  spontaneous  generation,  and  the  whole  array 
of  scientific  doctrines.  If  matter  becomes  mind,  mind  is  God,  and 
God  is  everything.  Thus  the  monster  Pantlieism  swallows  up  sci- 
ence and  its  votaries.  We  do  not  forget  that  the  naturalist,  after 
spending  his  life  in  studying  matter,  comes  to  the  conclusion  that 
*'  matter  is  nothing,"  that  the  "  Supreme  Intelligence  "  is  the 
universe.'-^  Thus  it  is  that  those  who  overstep  the  limits  of  human 
knowledge,  or  reject  the  control  of  primary  truths,  fall  into  the 
abyss  of  outer  darkness. 

The  way  Professor  Tyndall  puts  the  matter  is  this :  ^  "  These 
evolution  notions  are  absurd,  monstrous,  and  fit  only  for  the  intel- 
lectual gibbet  in  relation  to  the  ideas  concerning  matter  which 
were  drilled  into  us  when  young.  Spirit  and  matter  have  ever 
been  presented  to  us  in  the  rudest  contrast ;  the  one  as  all-noble, 
the  other  as  all-vile."  If  instead  of  these  perverted  ideas  of  mat- 
ter and  spirit,  we  come  "  to  regard  them  as  equally  worthy  and 
equally  wonderful ;  to  consider  them,  in  fact,  as  two  opposite 
faces  of  the  same  great  mystery,"  as  different  elements,  of  "  what 

1  AthencBum,  September  24.  1870,  p.  409. 

2  Contributions  to  the  Theory  of  Natural  Selection,  pp.  363-368.  Mr.  Wallace  thinks  that 
"  the  highest  fact  of  science,  tlie  nob'est  truth  of  philosophy,"  may  be  found  expressed  in 
the  following  words  of  an  American  poetess  :  — 

"  God  of  the  Granite  and  the  Rose  ! 
Soul  of  the  Sparrow  and  tlie  Bee  ! 
The  mighty  tide  of  Being  flows 

Through  countless  channels.  Lord,  from  thee. 
It  leaps  to  life  in  grass  and  flowers. 

Through  every  grade  of  being  runs, 
While  from  Creation's  radiant  towers 
Its  glory  flames  in  Stars  and  Suns." 
8  Athenceum,  September  24,  1870,  p.  409. 


# 


10  PART  n.      Cii.  I.  — ORIGIN   OF  MAN. 

our  mightiest  spiritual  teacher  would  call  the  Eternal  Fact  of  the 
Universe,"  then  the  case  would  be  different.  It  would  no  longer 
be  absurd,  as  Professor  Tyndall  seems  to  think,  for  mind  to  be- 
come matter  or  matter  mind,  or  for  the  phenomena  of  the  one  to 
be  produced  by  the  forces  of  the  other.  The  real  distinction,  in 
fact,  between  them  would  be  done  away.  "  Without  this  total 
revolution,"  he  says,  "  of  the  notions  now  prevalent,  the  evolution 
hypothesis  must  stand  condemned  ;  but  in  many  profoundly  thought- 
ful minds  such  a  revolution  has  already  occurred."  We  have, 
then,  the  judgment  of  Professor  Tyndall,  one  of  the  highest  au- 
thorities in  the  scientific  world,  that  if  matter  be  what  all  the 
world  believes  it  to  be,  materialism,  spontaneous  generation,  and. 
evolution,  or  development,  are  absurdities  "  too  monstrous  to  be 
entertained  by  any  sane  mind." 

We  can  cite  his  high  authority  as  to  another  point.  Suppose 
we  give  up  everything ;  admit  that  there  is  no  real  distinction 
between  matter  and  mind ;  that  all  the  phenomena  of  the  universe, 
vital  and  mental  included,  may  be  referred  to  physical  causes  ; 
that  a  free  or  spontaneous  act  is  an  absurdity  ;  that  there  can  be 
no  intervention  of  a  controlling  mind  or  will  in  the  affairs  of  men, 
no  personal  existence  of  man  after  death,  —  suppose  we  thus  give  up 
our  morals  and  religion,  all  that  ennobles  man  and  dignifies  his 
existence,  Avhat  do  we  gain  ?  According  to  Professor  Tyndall, 
nothing.^  "The  evolution  hypothesis,"  he  tells  us,  "does  not 
solve  —  it  does  not  profess  to  solve — the  ultimate  mystery  of  this 
universe.  It  leaves  that  mystery  untouched.  At  bottom,  it  does 
nothing  more  than  '  transpose  the  conception  of  life's  origin  to 
an  indefinitely  distant  past.'  Even  granting  the  nebula  and  its 
potential  life,  the  question,  '  Whence  came  they  ? '  would  still 
remain  to  baffle  and  bewilder  us."  If  we  must  admit  the  agency 
of  will,  "  caprice,"  as  Professor  Tyndall  calls  it,  billions  of  ages  in 
the  past,  why  should  it  be  unphilosophical  to  admit  it  now  ? 

It  is  very  evident,  therefore,  that  the  admission  of  the  primary 
truths  of  the  reason  —  truths  which,  in  point  of  fact,  all  men  do 
admit — truths  which  concern  even  our  sense  perceptions,  and 
involve  the  objective  existence  of  the  material  world,  necessitates 
the  admission  of  mind,  of  God,  of  providence,  and  of  immortality. 
Professor  Tyndall  being  judge,  materialism,  spontaneous  generation, 
the  evolution  of  life,  thought,  feeling,  and  conscience  out  of  matter, 
are  absurdities  "  too  monstrous  to  be  entertained  by  any  sane  mind," 
unless  matter  be  spiritualized  into  mind,  — and  then  everything  is 
God,  and  God  is  evervthino-. 

1   The  London  Athenceum,  September  24,  1870,  pp.  407-409. 


§  2]  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL   THEORIES.  11 

Theories  of  Development. 

Lamarck. 

Lamarck,  a  distinguished  French  naturalist,  was  the  first  of 
modern  scientific  men  who  adopted  the  theory  that  all  vegetables 
and  animals  living  on  the  earth,  including  man,  are  developed  from 
certain  original,  simple  germs.  This  doctrine  was  expounded  in  his 
"  Zoologie  Philosophique,"  published  in  1809.  Lamarck  admitted 
the  existence  of  God,  to  whom  he  referred  the  existence  of  the 
matter  of  which  the  universe  is  composed.  But  God  having  cre- 
ated matter  with  its  properties,  does  nothing  more.  Life,  organ- 
isms, and  mind  are  all  the  product  of  unintelligent  matter  and  its 
forces.  All  living  matter  is  composed  of  cellular  tissue^  consisting 
of  the  aggregation  of  minute  cells.  These  cells  are  not  living  in 
themselves,  but  are  quickened  into  life  by  some  ethereal  fluid  per- 
vading space,  such  as  heat  and  electricity.  Life,  therefore,  accord- 
ing to  this  theory,  originates  in  spontaneous  generation. 

Life,  living  cells  or  tissues,  having  thus  originated,  all  the  diver- 
sified forms  of  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms  have  been  pro- 
duced by  the  operation  of  natural  causes;  the  higher,  even  the 
highest,  being  formed  from  the  lowest  by  a  long-continued  pro- 
cess of  development. 

The  principles  of  Lamarck's  theory  "  are  involved  in  the  three 
following  propositions :  — 

"  1.  That  any  considerable  and  permanent  change  in  the  circum- 
stances in  which  a  race  of  animals  is  placed,  superinduces  in  them 
a  real  change  in  their  wants  and  requirements. 

"  2.  That  this  change  in  their  wants  necessitates  new  actions  on 
their  part  to  satisfy  those  wants,  and  that  finally  new  habits  are 
thus  engendered. 

"  3.  That  these  new  actions  and  habits  necessitate  a  greater  and 
more  frequent  use  of  particular  organs  already  existing,  which  thus 
become  strengthened  and  improved  ;  or  the  development  of  new 
organs  when  new  wants  require  them  ;  or  the  neglect  of  the  use 
of  old  organs,  which  may  thus  gradually  decrease  and  finally  dis- 
appear." ^ 

Vestiges  of  Creation. 

Some  thirty  years  since  a  work  appeared  anonymously,  entitled 
"  The  Vestiges  of  Creation,"  in  which  the  theory  of  Lamarck  in 
its  essential  features  was  reproduced.     The  writer  agreed  with  his 

1  William  Hopkins,  F.  R.  S.     Eraser's  Magazine,  June,  1860,  p.  751. 


12  PART  II.     Ch.  I.  — origin   OF  MAN. 

predecessor  in  admitting  an  original  creation  of  matter ;  in  referring 
the  origin  of  life  to  physical  causes ;  and  in  deriving  all  the  genera, 
species,  and  varieties  of  plants  and  animals  by  a  process  of  natural 
development  from  a  common  source.  These  writers  differ  in  the 
way  in  which  they  carry  out  their  common  views  and  as  to  the 
grounds  which  they  urge  in  their  support. 

The  author  of  the  "  Vestiges  of  Creation  "  assumes  the  truth 
of  the  nebular  hypothesis,  and  argues  from  analogy  tliat  as  the 
complicated  and  ordered  systems  of  the  heavenly  bodies  are  the 
result  of  physical  laws  acting  on  the  original  matter  pervading 
space,  it  is  reasonable  to  infer  that  the  different  orders  of  plants 
and  animals  have  arisen  in  the  same  way.  He  refers  to  the  grada- 
tion observ^ed  in  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms  ;  the  simpler 
everywhere  preceding  the  more  complex,  and  the  unity  of  plan 
being  preserved  throughout.  He  lays  great  stress  also  on  the  foetal 
development  of  the  higher  orders  of  animals.  The  human  foetus, 
for  example,  assuming  in  succession  the  peculiarities  of  structure  of 
the  reptile,  of  the  fish,  of  the  bird,  and  of  man.  This  is  supposed 
to  prove  that  man  is  only  a  more  perfectly  developed  reptile  ;  and 
that  the  orders  of  animals  differ  simply  as  to  the  stage  they  occupy 
in  this  unfolding  series  of  life.  As  the  same  larva  of  the  bee  can 
be  developed  into  a  queen,  a  drone,  or  a  worker,  so  the  same  living 
cell  can  be  developed  into  a  reptile,  a  fish,  a  bird,  or  a  man.  There 
are,  however,  the  author  admits,  interruptions  in  the  scale  ;  species 
suddenlv  appearing  without  due  preparation.  This  he  illustrates  by 
a  reference  to  the  calculating  machine,  which  for  a  million  of  times 
will  produce  numbers  in  regular  series,  and  then  for  once  produce 
a  number  of  a  different  order ;  thus  the  law  of  species  that  like  shall 
beget  like  may  hold  good  for  an  indefinite  period,  and  then  sud- 
denly a  new  species  be  begotten.  These  theories  and  their  authors 
have  fallen  into  utter  disrepute  among  scientific  men,  and  have  no 
other  than  a  slight  historical  interest. 

Darwin. 
The  new  theory  on  this  subject  proposed  by  Mr.  Charles  Darwin, 
has,  for  the  time  being,  a  stronger  hold  on  the  public  mind.  He 
stands  in  the  first  rank  of  naturalists,  and  is  on  all  sides  respected 
not  only  for  his  knowledge  and  his  skill  in  observation  and  descrip- 
tion, but  for  his  frankness  and  fairness.  His  theory,  however,  is 
substantially  the  same  with  those  already  mentioned,  inasmuch  as 
he  also  accounts  for  the  origin  of  all  the  varieties  of  plants  and 
animals  by  the  gradual  operation  of  natural  causes.     In  his  work 


§2.]  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL   THEORIES.  13 

on  the  "  Origin  of  Species  "  he  says :  "  I  believe  that  animals  are 
descended  from  at  most  only  four  or  five  progenitors  ;  and  plants 
from  an  equal  or  lesser  number."  On  the  same  page,i  however, 
he  goes  much  further,  and  says :  "  Analogy  would  lead  me  one 
step  further,  namely,  to  the  belief  that  all  animals  and  plants  are 
descended  from  some  one  prototype  ;  "  and  he  adds  that  "  all  the 
organic  beings,  which  have  ever  lived  on  this  earth,  may  be  de- 
scended from  some  one  primordial  form."  ^  The  point  of  most 
importance  in  which  Darwin  differs  from  his  predecessors  is,  that 
he  starts  with  life,  they  with  dead  matter.  They  undertake  to 
account  for  the  origin  of  life  by  physical  causes  ;  whereas  he  assumes 
the  existence  of  living  cells  or  germs.  He  does  not  go  into  the 
question  of  their  origin.  He  assumes  them  to  exist;  which  Avould 
seem  of  necessity  to  involve  the  assumption  of  a  Creator.  The 
second  important  point  of  difference  between  the  theories  in  ques- 
tion is,  that  those  before  mentioned  account  for  the  diversity  of 
species  by  the  inward  power  of  development,  a  vis  a  tergo  as  it 
were,  i.  e.,  a  struggle  after  improvement ;  whereas  Darwin  refers 
the  origin  of  species  mainly  to  the  laws  of  nature  operating  ah  extra^ 
killing  off  the  weak  or  less  perfect,  and  preserving  the  stronger 
or  more  perfect.  The  third  point  of  difference,  so  far  as  the 
author  of  the  "  Vestiges  of  Creation  "  is  conceimed,  is  that  the 
latter  supposes  new  species  to  be  formed  suddenly;  whereas  Dar- 
win holds  that  they  arise  by  a  slow  process  of  very  minute  changes. 
They  all  agree,  however,  in  the  main  point  that  all  the  infinite 
diversities  and  marvellous  organisms  of  plants  and  animals,  from 
the  lowest  to  the  highest,  are  due  to  the  operation  of  unintelligent 
physical  causes. 

The  Darwinian  theory,  therefore,  includes  the  following  princi- 
ples :  — 

First,  that  like  begets  like  ;  or  the  law  of  heredity,  according  to 
which  throughout  the  vegetable  and  animal  world,  the  offspring  is 
like  the  parent. 

Second,  the  law  of  variation  ;  that  is,  that  while  in  all  that  is 
essential  the  offspring  is  like  the  parent,  it  always  differs  more  or 
less  from  its  progenitor.  These  variations  are  sometimes  deterio- 
rations, sometimes  indifferent,  sometimes  improvements  ;  that  is, 
such  as  enable  the  plant  or  animal  more  advantageously  to  exercise 
its  functions. 

1  The  Origin  of  Species  by  Means  of  Natural  Selection,  or  the  Preservation  of  Favoured 
Races  in  the  Struggle  for  Life,  by  Charles  Darwin,  M.  A.,  F.  R.  S.,  etc.,  fifth  edition  (tenth 
thousand).     London,  1869,  p.  572. 

2  Ibid.  p.  573. 


14  PART  II.     Ch.   I.— origin   OF  MAN. 

Third,  that  as  phmts  and  animals  increase  in  a  geometrical  ratio, 
they  tend  to  outrun  enormously  the  means  of  support,  and  this  of 
necessity  gives  rise  to  a  continued  and  universal  struggle  for  life. 

Fourth,  in  this  struggle  the  fittest  survive  ;  that  is,  those  indi- 
viduals which  have  an  accidental  variation  of  structure  which 
renders  them  superior  to  their  fellows  in  the  struggle  for  existence, 
survive,  and  transmit  that  peculiarity  to  their  offspring.  This  is 
"  natural  selection  ;  "  i.  e.,  nature,  without  intelligence  or  purpose, 
selects  the  individuals  best  adapted  to  continue  and  to  improve  the 
race.  It  is  by  the  operation  of  these  few  principles  that  in  the 
course  of  countless  ages  all  the  diversified  forms  of  vegetables  and 
animals  have  been  produced. 

"  It  is  interesting,"  says  Darwin,  "  to  contemplate  a  tangled 
bank,  clothed  with  many  plants  of  many  kinds,  with  bii'ds  singing 
on  the  bushes,  with  various  insects  flitting  about,  and  with  worms 
crawling  through  the  damp  earth,  and  to  reflect  that  these  elab- 
orately constructed  forms,  so  different  from  each  other,  and  depend- 
ent on  each  other  in  so  complex  a  manner,  have  all  been  produced 
by  laws  acting  around  us.  These  laws,  taken  in  the  largest  sense, 
being  Growth  with  Reproduction  ;  Inheritance  which  is  almost 
implied  by  reproduction ;  Variability  from  the  indirect  and  direct 
action  of  the  conditions  of  life,  and  from  use  and  disuse  ;  a  Ratio 
of  Increase  so  high  as  to  lead  to  a  Struggle  for  Life,  and  as  a  con- 
sequence to  Natural  Selection,  entailing  Divergence  of  Character 
and  the  Extinction  of  less  improved  forms.  Thus,  from  the  war 
of  nature,  from  famine  and  death,  the  most  exalted  object  which 
we  are  capable  of  conceiving,  namely,  the  production  of  the  higher 
animals,  directly  follows."  ^ 

Remarks  on  the  Darwinian  Theory/, 

First,  it  shocks  the  common  sense  of  unsophisticated  men  to  be 
told  that  the  whale  and  the  humming-bird,  man  and  the  mosquito, 
ai'e  derived  from  the  same  source.  Not  that  the  whale  was  devel- 
oped out  of  the  humming-bird,  or  man  out  of  the  musquito,  but 
that  both  are  derived  by  a  slow  process  of  variations  continued 
through  countless  millions  of  years.  Such  is  the  theory  with  its 
scientific  feathers  plucked  off;  No  wonder  that  at  its  first  promul- 
gation it  was  received  by  thefscientific  world,  not  only  with  surprise, 
but  also  with  indignation.^     The  theory  has,  indeed,  survived  this 

1  Or!i/in  of  Species,  p.  579. 

2  See  Proceedings  of  the  Literary  ami  Phihsophical  Socieli/  of  Liverpool  during  the  Fifti- 
eth Session,  1860-61.    This  volume  contains  a  paper  on  Darwin's  tiieory  b}'  tlie  president 


l6^^\r     / 


§2.J  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL   THEORIES.  15 

attack.  Its  essential  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  age,  the  real 
learning^  of  its  author  and  advocates,  have  secured  for  it  an  influ- 
ence which  is  widespread,  and,  for  the  time,  imposing. 

A  second  remark  is  that  the  theory  in  question  cannot  be  true, 
because  it  is  founded  on  the  assumption  of  an  impossibility.  It 
assumes  that  matter  does  the  work  of  mind.  This  is  an  impossi- 
bility and  an  absurdity  in  the  judgment  of  all  men  except  material- 
ists ;  and  materialists  are,  ever  have  been,  and  ever  must  be,  a 
mere  handful  among  men,  whether  educated  or  uneducated.  The 
doctrine  of  Darwin  is,  that  a  primordial  germ,  with  no  inlierent 
intelligence,  develops,  under  purely  natural  influences,  into  all  the 
infinite  variety  of  vegetable  and  animal  organisms,  with  all  their 
complicated  relations  to  each  other  and  to  the  world  around  them. 
He  not  only  asserts  that  all  this  is  due  to  natural  causes  ;  and, 
moreover,  that  the  lower  impulses  of  vegetable  life  pass,  by  insen- 
sible gradations,  into  the  instinct  of  animals  and  the  higher  intelli- 
gence of  man,  but  he  argues  against  the  intervention  of  mind  any- 
where in  the  process.  God,  says  Lamarck,  created  matter ;  God, 
says  Darwin,  created  the  unintelligent  living  cell ;  both  say  that, 
after  that  first  step,  all  else  follows  by  natural  law.  without  purpose 
and  without  design.  No  man  can  believe  this,  who  cannot  also 
believe  that  all  the  works  of  art,  literature,  and  science  in  the  world 
are  the  products  of  carbonic  acid,  water,  and  ammonia. 

The  Atheistic  Character  of  the  Theory. 

Thirdly,  the  system  is  thoroughly  atheistic,  and  therefore  cannot 
possibly  stand.  God  has  revealed  his  existence  and  his  government 
of  the  world  so  clearly  and  so  authoritatively,  that  any  philosophi- 
cal or  scientific  speculations  inconsistent  with  those  truths  are  like 
cobwebs  in  the  track  of  a  tornado.  They  offer  no  sensible  resist- 
ance.    The  mere  naturalist,  the  man  devoted  so  exclusively  to  the 

of  the  society,  the  Rev.i  H.  H.  Higgins,  in  which  he  says  that  he  considered  the  paper  of 
M.  Agassiz,  inserted  in  the  Annals  and  Magazine  of  Natural  History,  against  Darwin,  "to 
be  quite  unworthy  of  so  distinguished  a  naturalist "  (p.  42).  On  a  subsequent  page  he  gives 
a  selection  from  Agassiz's  disparaging  remarits.  The  same  volume  contains  a  paper  from 
Dr.  Collingwood  in  defence  of  Agas-iz  and  his  criticism.  In  the  review  of  the  argument 
he  savs  he  will  pass  over  Agassiz's  "caustic  remarks  upon  the  confusion  of  ideas  implied 
in  the  general  term,  variability  of  specieg,''  and  also  "his  categiirical  contradictions  of 
manv  of  Darwin's  fundamental  statements  ;  but  never  was  a  tlieory  more  sorel}'  beset  than 
is  that  of  Darwin  by  the  repeated  asstuilts  of  such  a  giant  in  palaeontology  as  Agassiz. 
Statement  after  statement,  by  which  the  whole  theory  hangs  together,  is  assailed  and 
impugned,  —  stone  after  stone  of  the  Darwinian  structure  trembles  before  the  battering-ram 
of  the  champion  of  species.  Out  of  twelve  such  reiterated  attacks,  ten  of  which  are  purely 
palseontological,  and  stand  unchallenged,  onlj'  one  has  called  for  remarks,  and  th  |t  one, 
perhaps,  the  least  important"  (p.  87).  Agassiz  is  not  a  theologian;  he  opposes  the  theory 
as  a  scientific  man  and  on  scientific  grounds. 


16  PART  n.   Ch.  l  — origin  of  man. 

study  of  nature  as  to  believe  in  nothing  but  natural  causes,  is  not 
able  to  understand  the  strength  with  which  moral  and  religious 
convictions  take  hold  of  the  minds  of  men.  These  convictions, 
however,  are  the  strongest,  the  most  ennobling,  and  the  most 
dangerous  for  any  class  of  men  to  disregard  or  ignore. 

In  saying  that  this  system  is  atheistic,  it  is  not  said  that  Mr. 
Darwin  is  an  atheist.  He  expressly  acknowledges  the  existence 
of  God  ;  and  seems  to  feel  the  necessity  of  his  existence  to  account 
for  the  origin  of  life.  Nor  is  it  meant  that  every  one  who  adopts 
the  theory  does  it  in  an  atheistic  sense.  It  has  already  been 
remarked  that  there  is  a  theistic  and  an  atheistic  form  of  the  nebu- 
lar liypothesis  as  to  the  origin  of  the  universe  ;  so  there  may  be  a 
theistic  interpretation  of  the  Darwinian  theory.  Men  who,  as  the 
Duke  of  Argyle,  carry  the  reign  of  law  into  everything,  affirming 
that  even  creation  is  by  law,  may  hold,  as  he  does,  that  God  uses 
everywhere  and  constantly  physical  laws,  to  produce  not  only  the 
ordinary  operations  of  nature,  but  to  give  rise  to  things  specifically 
new,  and  therefore  to  new  species  in  the  vegetable  and  animal 
worlds.  Such  species  would  thus  be  as  truly  due  to  the  purpose 
and  power  of  God  as  though  they  had  been  created  by  a  word. 
Natural  laws  are  said  to  be  to  God  what  the  chisel  and  the  brush 
are  to  the  artist.  Then  God  is  as  much  the  author  of  species  as 
the  sculptor  or  painter  is  the  author  of  the  product  of  his  skill. 
This  is  a  theistic  doctrine.  That,  however,  is  not  Darwin's  doc- 
trine. His  theory  is  that  hundreds  or  thousands  of  millions  of 
years  ago  God  called  a  living  germ,  or  living  germs,  into  existence, 
and  that  since  that  time  God  has  no  more  to  do  with  the  universe 
than  if  He  did  not  exist.  This  is  atheism  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses, because  it  leaves  the  soul  as  entirely  without  God,  without  a 
Father,  Helper,  or  Ruler,  as  the  doctrine  of  Epicurus  or  of  Comte. 
Darwin,  moreover,  obliterates  all  the  evidences  of  the  being  of  God 
in  the  world.  He  refers  to  physical  causes  what  all  theists  believe 
to  be  due  to  the  operations  of  the  Divine  mind.  There  is  no  more 
effectual  way  of  getting  rid  of  a  truth  than  by  rejecting  the  proofs 
on  which  it  rests.  Professor  Huxley  says  that  when  he  first  read 
Darwin's  book  he  regarded  it  as  the  death-blow  of  teleology,  ^.  e.,  of 
the  doctrine  of  design  and  purpose  in  nature.^     Biichner,  to  whom 

1  Criticismg  on  "  The  Origin  of  Species;"  in  Ms  Lay  Sermons  and  Addresses,  p.  330. 
•'  The  teleological  argument,"  he  says,  "  runs  thus:  An  organ  or  organism  is  precisely  fitted  to 
perform  a  function  or  purpose ;  therefore  it  was  specially  constructed  to  perform  that  function. 
In  Paley's  famous  illustration,  the  adaptation  of  all  the  parts  of  the  watch  to  the  function, 
or  purpose,  of  showing  the  time,  is  held  to  be  evidence  that  the  watch  was  specially  contrived 
to  that  end ;  on  the  ground  that  the  only  cause  we  know  of,  competent  to  produce  such  an 


§2.]  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL  THEORIES.  17 

the  atheistical  character  of  a  book  is  a  recommendation,  says  tliat 
Darwin's  "  theory  is  the  most  thoroughly  naturalistic  that  can  be 
imagined,  and  far  more  atheistic  than  that  of  his  despised  {verrn- 
feneri)  predecessor  Lamarck,  who  admitted  at  least  a  general  law 
of  progress  and  development ;  whereas,  according  to  Darwin,  the 
whole  development  is  due  to  the  gradual  summation  of  innumerable 
minute  and  accidental  natural  operations."  ^ 

Mr.  Darwin  argues  against  any  divine  intervention  in  the  course 
of  nature,  and  especially  in  the  production  of  species.  He  says  that 
the  time  is  coming  when  the  doctrine  of  special  creation,  that  is,  the 
doctrine  that  God  made  the  plants  and  animals  each  after  its  kind, 
will  be  regarded  as  "  a  curious  illustration  of  the  blindness  of  pre- 
conceived opinion.  These  authors,"  he  adds,  "  seem  no  more 
startled  at  a  miraculous  act  of  creation  than  at  an  ordinary  birth. 
But  do  they  really  believe  that  at  innumerable  periods  in  the  earth's 
history  certain  elemental  atoms  have  been  commanded  suddenly  to 
flash  into  living  tissues?"  [This  is  precisely  what  Darwin  pro- 
fesses to  believe  happened  at  the  beginning.  If  it  happened  once, 
it  is  not  absurd  that  it  should  happen  often.]  "  Do  they  believe 
that  at  each  supposed  act  of  creation  one  individual  or  many  were 
produced  ?  Were  all  the  infinitely  numerous  kinds  of  animals  and 
plants  created  as  eggs  or  seed,  or  as  full  grown  ?  And  in  the 
case  of  mammals,  were  they  created  bearing  the  false  marks  of 
nourishment  from  the  mother's  womb  ?  "  ^ 

Mr.  Wallace  devotes  the  eighth  chapter  of  his  work. on  "  Natural 
Selection  "  ^  to  answering  the  objections  urged  by  the  Duke  of 
Argyle  to  the  Darwinian  theory.  He  says,  "  The  point  on  which 
the  Duke  lays  most  stress,  is,  that  proofs  of  mind  everywhere  meet 
us  in  nature,  and  are  more  especially  manifest  wherever  we  find 
'contrivance'  or  'beauty.'  He  maintains  that  this  indicates  the 
constant  supervision  and  direct  interference  of  the  Creator,  and 
cannot  possibly  be  explained  by  the  unassisted  action  of  any  combi- 

efftct  as  a  watch  which  shall  keep  time,  is  a  contris'ing  intelligence  adapting  the  means 
directh'  to  that  end."  Suppose,  however,  he  goes  on  to  say,  it  could  be  shown  that  the 
watch  was  the  product  of  a  structure  which  kept  time  poorh';  and  that  of  a  structure  which 
was  no  watch  at  all,  and  that  of  a  mere  revolving  barrel,  then  "  the  force  of  Paley's  argu- 
ment would  be  gone;  "  and  it  would  be  "  demonstrated  that  an  apparatus  thoroughly  well 
adapted  to  a  particular  purpose  might  be  the  result  of  a  method  of  trial  and  error  worked  by 
unintelligent  agents,  as  well  as  of  the  direct  application  of  the  means  appropriate  to  that 
end,  by  an  intelligent  agent."  This  is  precisely  what  he  understands  Darwin  to  have 
accomplished. 

1  Seeks   Vovlesvngen  iiber  die    Darwin'sche   Theorie,  etc.,  by  Ludwig  Biichner,  Zweite 
Auflage,  Leipzig,  1868,  p.  125. 

2  Origin  of  Species,  p.  571. 

^  Wallace  cm  Natural  Selection,  p.  264. 
VOL.  II.  2 


18  PART  II.     Ch.   L  — origin   OF  MAN. 

nation  of  laws.  Now  Mr.  Darwin's  work  has  for  its  main  object, 
to  show,  that  all  the  phenomena  of  living  things  —  all  their  won- 
derful organs  and  complicated  structures ;  their  infinite  variety  of 
form,  size,  and  colour ;  their  intricate  and  involved  relations  to  each 
other,  —  may  have  been  produced  by  the  action  of  a  few  general 
laws  of  the  simplest  kind,  —  laws  which  are  in  most  cases  mere 
statements  of  admitted  facts."  ^  In  opposition  to  the  doctrine  that 
God  "  applies  general  laws  to  produce  effects  which  those  laws  are 
not  in  themselves  capable  of  producing,"  he  says,  "  I  believe,  on 
the  contrary,  that  the  universe  is  so  constituted  as  to  be  self-regu- 
lating ;  that  as  long  as  it  contains  life,  the  forms  under  which  that 
life  is  manifested  have  an  inherent  power  of  adjustment  to  each 
other  and  to  surrounding  nature  ;  and  that  this  adjustment  neces- 
sarily leads  to  the  greatest  amount  of  variety  and  beauty  and 
enjoyment,  because  it  does  depend  on  general  laws,  and  not  on  a 
continual  supervision  and  rearrangement  of  details."  ^ 

Dr.  Gray^  endeavours  to  vindicate  Darwin's  theory  from  the 
charge  of  atheism.  His  arguments,  howev^er,  only  go  to  prove  that 
the  doctrine  of  development,  or  derivation  of  species,  may  be  held 
in  a  form  consistent  with  theism.  This  no  one  denies.  They  do 
not  prove  that  Mr.  Darwin  presents  it  in  that  form.  Dr.  Gray 
himself  admits  all  that  those  who  regard  the  Darwinian  theory  as 
atheistic  contend  for.*  He  says,  "  The  proposition  that  things  and 
events  in  nature  were  not  designed  to  be  so,  if  logically  carried 
out,  is  doubtless  tantamount  to  atheism."  Again,^  he  says,  "  To 
us,  a  fortuitous  Cosmos  is  simply  inconceivable.     The  alternative 

is  a   designed  Cosmos If  Mr.   Darwin   believes  that  the 

events  which  he  supposes   to  have  occurred   and   the   results  we 

1  Wallace  on  Naiui-al  Selection,  p.  265.  When  a  man  speaks  of  the  "action  of  law,"  he 
must  mean  by  law  a  permanent,  regularly  acting  force.  Yet  the  laws  to  which  Mr.  Wallace 
refers  in  the  above  passage  are  not  forces,  but  simply  rules  according  to  which  an  agent 
acts,  or,  a  regHlar,  established  sequence  of  events.  The  laws  intended  are  the  law  of  multi- 
plication in  geometrical  progression,  the  law  of  limited  populations,  the  law  of  heredity,  the 
law  of  variation,  the  law  of  unceasing  change  of  physical  conditions  upon  the  surftice  of 
the  earth,  the  equilibrium  or  harmony  of  nature.  There  is  no  objection  to  these  being 
called  laws.  But  there  is  the  strongest  objection  to  using  the  word  law  in  different  senses 
in  the  same  argument.  If  law  here  mean  the  rule  according  to  which  an  agent  (in  this 
case  God)  acts,  the  Duke  of  Argyle  could  agree  with  eveiy  word  Mr.  Wallace  says;  if 
taken  in  the  sense  intended  by  the  writer,  the  passage  teaches  the  direct  reverse,  namely, 
that  all  the  world  is  or  contains  is  due  to  unintelligent  physical  forces. 

2  Ibid,  p  2G8.  Mr.  Russel  Wallace  says  that  he  believes  that  all  the  wonders  of  animal 
and  vegetable  organisms  and  life  can  be  accounted  for  by  unintelligent,  physical  laws.  The 
fact,  however,  is,  as  we  have  already  seen,  that  he  believes  no  such  thing.  He  does  not 
believe  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  matter  or  unintelligent  forces;  all  force  is  mind 
force;  and  the  only  power  operative  in  the  universe  is  the  will  of  the  Supreme  Intelligence. 

In  the  October  number  of  the  Atlantic  Monthly  for  1860. 
*  On  page  409.  6  On  page  416. 


§2.]  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL   THEORIES.  19 

behold  were  undirected  and  undesigned,  or  if  the  physicist  believes 
that  the  natural  forces  to  which  he  refers  phenomena  are  uncaused 
and  undirected,  no  argument  is  needed  to  show  that  such  belief  is 
atheistic."  No  argnment,  after  what  has  been  said  above,  can  be 
needed  to  show  that  Mr.  Darwin  does  teach  that  natural  causes 
are  "  undirected,"  and  that  they  act  without  design  or  reference 
to  an  end.  This  is  not  only  explicitly  and  repeatedly  asserted,  but 
argued  for,  and  the  opposite  view  ridiculed  and  rejected.  His  book 
was  hailed  as  the  death-blow  of  teleology.^  Darwin,  therefore,  does 
teach  precisely  what  Dr.  Gray  pronounces  atheism.  A  man,  it 
seems,  may  believe  in  God,  and  yet  teach  atheism. 

The  anti-theistic  and  materialistic  character  of  this  theory  is  still 
further  shown  by  what  Mr.  Darwin  says  of  our  mental  powers. 
"  In  the  distant  future,"  he  says,  "  I  see  open  fields  for  far  more 
important  researches.  Psychology  will  be  based  on  a  new  founda- 
tion, that  of  the  necessary  acquirement  of  each  mental  power  and 
capacity  by  gradation.  Light  will  be  thrown  on  the  origin  of  man 
and  his  history."  ^  Of  this  prediction  he  has  himself  attempted  the 
verification  in  his  recent  work  on  the  "  Descent  of  Man,"  in  which 
he  endeavours  to  prove  that  man  is  a  developed  ape.  The  Bible 
says  :  Man  Avas  created  in  the  image  of  God. 

It  is  a  mere  Hypothesis. 

A  fourth  remark  on  this  theory  is  that  it  is  a 'mere  hypothesis, 
from  its  nature  incapable  of  proof.  It  may  take  its  place  beside 
the  nebular  hypothesis  as  an  ingenious  method  of  explaining  many 
of  the  phenomena  of  nature.  We  see  around  us,  in  the  case  of 
domestic  animals,  numerous  varieties  produced  by  the  operations 
of  natural  causes.  In  the  vegetable  world  this  diversity  is  still 
greater.  Mr.  Darwin's  theory  would  account  for  all  these  facts. 
It  accounts,  moreover,  for  the  unity  of  plan  on  which  all  animals  of 
the  same  class  or  order  are  constructed  ;  for  the  undeveloped  organs 
found  rudimentally  in  almost  all  classes  of  living  creatures  ;  for  the 
different  forms  through  which  the  embryo  passes  before  it  reaches 
maturity.  These  and  many  other  phenomena  may  be  accounted 
for  on  the  assumption  of  the  derivation  of  species.  Admitting  all 
this  and  much  more,  this  does  not  amount  to  a  proof  of  the  hypoth- 
esis. These  facts  can  be  accounted  for  in  other  ways  ;  while  there 
are,  as  Darwin  himself  admits,  many  facts  for  which  his  theory  will 

1  Three  articles  in  the  July,  August,  and  October  numbers  oH\\^  Atlantic  Monthly  for  the 
year  1860  were  reprinted  with  the  name  of  Dr.  Asa  Gray  as  their  author. 

2  Origin  of  Species,  p.  577. 


20  PART  II.     Ch.  I  — origin   OF  MAN. 

not  account.  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  what  the  theory  is.  It  is 
not  that  all  the  species  of  any  extant  genus  of  plants  or  animals 
have  been  derived  from  a  common  stock;  that  all  genera  and 
classes  of  orf^anized  beings  now  living  have  been  thus  derived  ;  but 
that  all  organisms  from  the  earliest  geological  periods  have,  by  a 
process  requiring  some  ^ve  hundred  million  years,  been  derived 
from  one  primordial  germ.^  Nor  is  this  all.  It  is  not  only  that 
material  organisms  have  thus  been  derived  by  a  process  of  grada- 
tion, but  also  that  instincts,  mental  and  moral  powers,  have  been 
derived  and  attained  by  the  same  process.  Nor  is  even  this  all. 
We  are  called  upon  to  believe  that  all  this  has  been  brought  about 
by  the  action  of  unintelligent  physical  causes.  To  our  apprehen- 
sion, there  is  nothing  in  the  Hindu  mythology  and  cosmology  more 
incredible  than  this. 

It  is  hazarding  little  to  say  that  such  a  hypothesis  as  this  cannot 
be  proved.  Indeed  its  advocates  do  not  pretend  to  give  proof.  Mr. 
Wallace,  as  we  have  seen,  says,  "  Mr.  Darwin's  work  has  for  its 
main  object,  to  show  that  all  the  phenomena  of  living  things,  —  all 
their  wonderful  organs  and  complicated  structures,  their  infinite 
variety  of  form,  size,  and  colour,  their  intricate  and  involved  rela- 
tions to  each  other,  —  may  have  been  produced  by  the  action  of  a 
few  general  laws  of  the  simplest  kind."  Mai/  have  been.  There 
is  no  pretence  that  this  account  of  the  origin  of  species  can  be  dem- 
onstrated. All  that  is  claimed  is  that  it  is  a  possible  solution. 
Christians  must  be  very  timid  to  be  frightened  by  a  mere  "  mat/ 
have  been.^'' 

Mr.  Huxley  says,  "  After  much  consideration,  and  with  assuredly 
no  bias  against  Mr.  Darwin's  views,  it  is  our  clear  conviction  that, 
as  the  evidence  stands,  it  is  not  absolutely  proven  that  a  group  of 
animals,  having  all  the  characters  exhibited  by  species  in  Nature, 

1  Sir  William  Thompson,  of  Englanri,  had  objected  to  the  theory  that,  according  to  his 
calculations,  the  sun  cannot  have  existed  in  a  solid  state  longer  than  five  hundred  millions 
of  years.  To  this  Mr.  Wallace  replies,  that  that  period,  he  thinks  long  enough  to  satisfj' 
the  demands  of  the  hypothesis.  Mr.  .J.  .J.  Jlurphj^  however,  is  of  a  contrary  opinion.  He 
says  that  it  is  probable  that  it  required  at  least  five  hundred  years  to  produce  a  grej'hound  — 
Mr.  Darwin's  ideal  of  symmetry  —  out  of  the  original  wolf-like  dog,  and  that  certainh*  it  would 
require  more  than  a  million  times  longer  period  to  produce  an  elephant  out  of  a  Protozoon, 
or  even  a  tadpole.  Besides,  Sir  William  Thompson  allows  in  fact  only  one.  and  not  ^^ce, 
hundred  millions  of  years  for  the  existence  of  our  earth,  in  the  Trnnsactions  of  Geological 
Society  of  Glasgow,  vol.  iii.,  he  says:  "When,  finally,  we  consider  under-ground  tempera- 
ture, we  find  ourselves  driven  to  the  conclusion  tjiat  the  existing  state  of  things  on  the 
earth,  life  on  the  earth,  all  geological  history  showing  continuity  of  life,  must  be  limited 
within  some  such  period  of  past  lime  as  cm  hundred  million  years."  See  Habit  and  Intelli- 
gence, by  J.  J.  Murphy,  London,  1869,  vol.  i.  p.  3i9. 


§  2.]  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL   THEORIES.  21 

has  ever  been  originated  by  selection,  whether  artificial  or  nat- 
ural." 1 

In  "  Fraser's  Magazine  "  for  June  and  July,  1860,  are  two 
papers  on  the  Darwinian  theory,  written  by  William  Hopkins, 
F.  R.  S.  In  the  number  for  July  it  is  said,  "  If  we  allow  full  weight 
to  all  our  author's  arguments  in  his  chapter  on  hybridism,  we  only 
arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  natural  selection  may  possibly  have 
produced  changes  of  organization,  which  may  have  superinduced 
the  sterility  of  species  ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  above  proposition 
may  be  true,  though  not  a  single  positive  fact  be  adduced  in  proof 
of  it.  And  it  must  be  recollected  that  this  is  no  proposition  of 
secondary  importance  —  a  mere  turret,  as  it  were,  in  our  author's 
theoretical  fabric,  —  but  the  chief  corner-stone  which  supports  it. 
We  confess  that  all  the  respect  which  we  entertain  for  the  author 
of  these  views,  has  inspired  us  with  no  corresponding  feeling  to- 
wards this  may  he  philosophy,  which  is  content  to  substitute  the 
merely  possible  for  the  probable,  and  which,  ignoring  the  responsi- 
bility of  any  approximation  to  rigorous  demonstration  in  the 
establishment  of  its  own  theories,  complacently  assumes  them  to 
be  right  till  they  are  rigorously  proved  to  be  wrong.  When  New- 
ton, in  former  times,  put  forth  his  theory  of  gravitation  he  did  not 
call  on  philosophers  to  believe  it,  or  else  to  show  that  it  was  wrong, 
but  felt  it  incumbent  on  himself  to  prove  that  it  was  right."  ^ 

Mr.  Hopkins'  review  was  written  before  Mr.  Darwin  had  fully 
expressed  his  views  as  to  the  origin  of  man.  He  says,  the  great 
difficulty  in  any  theory  of  development  is  "  the  transition  in  pass- 
ing up  to  man  from  the  animals  next  beneath  him,  not  to  man  con- 
sidered merely  as  a  physical  organism,  but  to  man  as  an  intellectual 
and  moral  being.  Lamarck  and  the  author  of  the  '  Vestio;es ' 
have  not  hesitated  to  expose  themselves  to  a  charge  of  gross 
materialism  in  deriving  mind  from  matter,  and  in  making  all  its 
properties  and  operations  depend  on  our  physical  organization. 
....  We  believe  that  man  has  an  immortal  soul,  and  that  the 
beasts  of  the  field  have  not.  If  any  one  deny  this,  we  can  have  no 
common  ground  of  argument  with  him.  Now  we  would  ask,  at 
what  point  of  his  progressive  improvement  ditl  man  acquire  this 
spiritual  part   of  his   being,  endowed  with  the   awful   attribute  of 

1  Lay  Sermons  and  Re.vieics,  p.  323.  It  is  admitted  that  varieties  innumerable  have  been 
produced  by  natural  causes,  but  Professor  Huxley  says  it  has  not  been  proved  that 
any  one  species  has  ever  been  thus  formed.  A  fortiori,  therefore,  it  has  not  been  proved  that 
all  genera  and  species,  with  all  their  attributes  of  instinct  and  intelligence  have  been  thus 
formed. 

2  Frazer^s  Magazine,  July,  1860,  p.  80. 


22  PART  n.   ch.  I  — origin  of  man. 

immortality  ?  Was  it  an  '  accidental  variety,'  seized  upon  by  the 
power  of  'natural  selection,'  and  made  permanent?  Is  the  step 
from  the  finite  to  the  infinite  to  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  indefi- 
nitely small  steps  in  man's  continuous  progress  of  development, 
and  effected  by  the  operation  of  ordinary  natural  causes  ?  "  ^ 

The  point  now  in  liand,  however,  is  tliat  Mr.  Darwin's  theory 
is  incapable  of  proof.  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  what  concerns 
the  origin  of  things  cannot  be  known  except  by  a  supernatural 
revelation.  All  else  must  be  speculation  and  conjecture.  And 
no  man  under  the  guidance  of  reason  will  renounce  the  teachings 
of  a  well-authenticated  revelation,  in  obedience  to  human  specula- 
tion, however  ingenious.  The  uncertainty  attending  all  philosoph- 
ical or  scientific  theories  as  to  the  origin  of  things,  is  sufficiently 
apparent  from  their  number  and  inconsistencies.  Science  as  soon 
as  she  gets  past  the  actual  and  the  extant,  is  in  the  region  of  spec- 
ulation, and  is  merged  into  philosophy,  and  is  subject  to  all  its  hal- 
lucinations. 

Theories  of  the  Universe. 

Thus  we  have,  — 

1.  The  purely  atheistic  theory ;  which  assumes  that  matter  has 
existed  forever,  and  that  all  the  universe  contains  and  reveals  is 
due  to  material  forces. 

2.  The  theory  which  admits  the  creation  of  matter,  but  denies 
any  further  intervention  of  God  in  the  world,  and  refers  the  origin 
of  life  to  physical  causes.  This  was  the  doctrine  of  Lamarck,  and 
of  the  author  of  the  '*  Vestiges  of  Creation,"  and  is  the  theory  to 
which  Professor  Huxley,  notwithstanding  his  denial  of  spontaneous 
generation  in  the  existing  state  of  things,  seems  strongly  inclined. 
In  his  address  as  President  of  the  British  Association  for  the  Pro- 
motion of  Science,  delivered  in  September,  1870,  he  said:  "Look- 
ing back  through  the  prodigious  vista  of  the  past,  I  find  no  record 
of  the  commencement  of  life,  and  therefore  I  am  devoid  of  any 
means  of  forming  a  definite  conclusion  as  to  the  conditions  of  its 
appearance.  Belief,  in  the  scientific  sense  of  the  word,  is  a  serious 
matter,  and  needs  strong  foundations.  To  say,  therefore,  in  the 
admitted  absence  of  evidence,  that  I  have  any  belief  as  to  the  mode 
in  which  the  existing  forms  of  life  have  originated,  would  be  using 
words  in  a  wrong  sense.  But  expectation  is  permissible,  where 
belief  is  not ;  and  if  it  were  given  me  to  look  beyond  the  abyss  of 
genealogically  recorded  time  to  the  still  more  remote  period  when 
the  earth  was  passing  through  physical  and  chemical  conditions, 

1  Frazer's  Magazine,  July,  1860,  p.  88. 


§  2]  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL   THEORIES.  23 

which  it  can  no  more  see  again  than  a  man  may  recall  his  infancy,  * 
I  should  expect  t6  be  a  witness  of  the  evolution  of  living  pi'otoplasm 
from  not  living  matter.  I  should  expect  to  see  it  appear  under  forms 
of  great  simplicity,  endowed,  like  existing  fungi,  with  the  power  of 
determining  the  formation  of  new  protoplasm  from  such  matters  as 
ammonium  cai'bonates,  oxalates  and  tai'trates,  alkaline  and  earthy 
phosphates,  and  water,  without  the  aid  of  light."  ^  It  had  been  well 
for  the  cause  of  truth,  and  well  for  hundreds  who  have  been  per- 
verted by  his  writings,  if  Mr.  Darwin  had  recognized  this  distinc- 
tion between  "scientific  belief"  needing  "strong  foundations,"  and 
"  expectation  "  founded,  as  Professor  Huxley  says  in  a  following 
sentence,  "on  analogical  reasoning."  In  the  paper  already  quoted 
in  "  Fraser's  Magazine,"  the  writer  says  in  reference  to  Darwin  : 
"  We  would  also  further  remind  him  that  the  philosophical  natu- 
ralist must  not  only  train  the  eye  to  observe  accurately,  but  the 
mind  to  think  logically  ;  and  the  latter  will  often  be  found  the 
harder  task  of  the  two.  With  respect  to  all  but  the  exact  sci- 
ences, it  may  be  said  that  the  highest  mental  faculty  which  they  call 
upon  us  to  exert  is  that  by  which  we  separate  and  appreciate  justly 
the  possible,  the  probable^  and  the  demonstrable.^^  ^ 

Darwin. 

3.  The  third  speculative  view  is  that  of  Mr.  Darwin  and  his 
associates,  who  admit  not  only  the  creation  of  matter,  but  of  living 
matter,  in  the  form  of  one  or  a  few  primordial  germs  fi'om  which 
without  any  purpose  or  design,  by  the  slow  operation  of  unintelli- 
gent natural  causes,  and  accidental  variations,  during  untold  ages, 
all  the  orders,  classes,  genera,  species,  and  varieties  of  plants  and 
animals,  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest,  man  included,  have  been 
formed.  Teleology,  and  therefore,  mind,  or  God,  is  expressly  ban- 
ished from  the  world.  In  arguino;  against  the  idea  of  God's  con- 
trolling  with  design  the  operation  of  second  causes.  Mi'.  Dar- 
win asks,  "  Did  He  ordain  that  the  crop  and  tail-feathers  of  the 
pigeon  should  vary,  in  order  that  the  fancier  might  make  his 
grotesque  pouter  and  fan-tail  breeds  ?  Did  He  cause  the  frame  and 
mental  qualities  of  the  dog  to  vary  in  order  that  a  breed  might  be 
formed  of  indomitable  ferocity,  with  jaws  fitted  to  pin  down  the 
bull  for  man's  brutal  sport  ?  But,  if  we  give  up  the  principle  in 
one  case,  —  if  we  do  not  admit  that  the  variations  of  the  primeval 
dog  were  intentionally  guided,  in  order  that  the  greyhound,  for  in- 
stance, that  perfect  image  of  symmetry  and  vigour,  might  be  formed, 

1  Athenaeum,  London,  September  17, 18T0,  p.  376.  2  Juiy^  iggo,  p.  90. 


24  PART  n.    Ch.  I.  —  ORIGIN  OF  MAN. 

no  shadow  of  reason  can  be  assigned  for  the  behef  that  variations, 

ahke  in  nature  and  the  resuh  of  the  same  general  laws,  which  have 
been  the  oroundwork  through  natural  selection  of  the  formation  of 
the  most  perfectly  adapted  animals  in  the  world,  man  included,  were 
intentionally  and  specially  guided.  However  much  we  may  wish 
it,  we  can  hardly  follow  Professor  Asa  Gray  in  his  belief  '  that  vari- 
ation has  been  led  along  certain  beneficial  lines,'  like  a  stream 
'  along  definite  and  useful  lines  of  irrigation.'  "  ^  In  this  paragraph 
man  is  declared  to  be  an  unintended  product  of  nature. 

J.  J.  Murphy. 

4.  Others  ao-ain,  unable  to  believe  that  unintelligent  causes  can 
produce  effects  indicating  foresight  and  design,  insist  that  there 
must  be  intelligence  engaged  in  the  production  of  such  effects,  but 
they  place  this  intelligence  in  nature  and  not  in  God.  This,  as 
remarked  above,  is  a  revival  of  the  old  idea  of  a  Demiurgus  or 
Anima  mundi.  Mr.  J.  J.  Murphy,  in  his  work  on  "  Habit  and 
Intelligence,"  says,  I  believe  "  that  there  is  something  in  organic 
progress  which  mere  natural  selection  among  spontaneous  varia- 
tions will  not  account  for.  Finally,  I  believe  this  something  is  that 
orfn-anizins:  intelligence  which  guides  the  action  of  the  inorganic 
forces  and  forms  structures  which  neither  natural  selection  nor 
any  other  unintelligent  agency  could  form."  ^  What  he  means  by 
intelHgence  and  where  it  resides  we  learn  from  the  preface  to  the 
first  volume  of  his  book.  "The  word  intelligence,"  he  says, 
"  scarcely  needs  definition,  as  I  use  it  in  its  familiar  sense.  It  will 
not  be  questioned  by  any  one  that  intelligence  is  found  in  none  but 
living  beings  ;  but  it  is  not  so  obvious  tliat  intelligence  is  an  attri- 
bute of  all  livino;  beings,  and  coextensive  with  life  itself.  When  I 
speak  of  intelligence,  however,  I  mean  not  only  the  conscious  in- 
telligence of  the  mind,  but  also  the  organizing  intelligence  which 
adapts  the  eye  for  seeing,  the  ear  for  hearing,  and  every  other  part 
of  an  organism  for  its  work.  The  usual  belief  is,  that  the  organ- 
izing intelligence  and  the  mental  intelligence  are  two  distinct  intel- 
ligences.  I  have  stated  the  reasons  for  my  belief  that  they  are  not 
distinct,  but  are  two  separate  manifestations  of  the  same  intelli- 
gence, which  is  coextensive  witli  life,  though  it  is  for  the  most  part 
unconscious,  and  only  becomes  conscious  of  itself  in  the  brain  of 
man."  ^ 

1  The  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,  edit.  New  York,  1868,  vol. 
ii.  pp.  515,  516. 

2  Habit  and  JnleUigence,  in  their  connection  with  the  Laws  of  Matter  and  Force.  A  iseries 
of  Scientific  Essays.    By  Joseph  John  Murphy.     London,  1869,  vol.  i.  pi  348. 

8  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  vi. 


§2.]  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL  THEORIES.  25 

Owen. 

5.  Professor  Owen,  England's  great  naturalist,  agrees  with  Dar- 
win in  two  points  :  first,  in  the  derivation  or  gradual  evolution  of 
species  ;  and  secondly,  that  this  derivation  is  determined  by  the 
operation  of  natural  causes.  "  I  have  been  led,"  he  says,  "  to  recog- 
nize species  as  exemplifying  the  continuous  operation  of  natural 
law,  or  secondary  cause  ;  and  that,  not  only  successively,  but  pro- 
gressively ;  from  the  first  embodiment  of  the  vertebrate  idea  under 
its  old  ichthyic  vestment  until  it  became  arrayed  in  the  glorious 
garb  of  the  human  form."  ^  He  differs  from  Darwin  in  that  he 
does  not  refer  the  origin  of  species  to  natural  selection,  i.  e.,  to  the 
law  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest  of  accidental  variations  ;  but  to 
inherent  or  innate  tendencies.  "  Every  species  changes,  in  time, 
by  virtue  of  inherent  tendencies  thereto."  ^  And  in  the  second  place 
he  does  not  regard  these  changes  as  accidental  variations,  but  as 
designed  and  carried  out  in  virtue  of  an  original  plan.  "  Species 
owe  as  little,"  he  says  ^  "  to  the  accidental  concurrence  of  environ- 
ing circumstances  as  Kosmos  depends  on  a  fortuitous  concourse 
of  atoms.  A  purposive  route  of  development  and  change,  of  cor- 
relation and  interdependence,  manifesting  intelligent  will,  is  as 
determinable  in  the  succession  of  races  as  in  the  development  and 
organization  of  the  individual.  Generations  do  not  vary  acciden- 
tally, in  any  and  every  direction  ;  but  in  preordained,  definite, 
and  correlated  courses."  * 

The  Iteign  of  Laiv  Theory. 

6.  Still  another  view  is  that  which  demands  intelligence  to  ac- 
count for  the  wonders  of  organic  life,  and  finds  that  intelligence  in 
God,  but  repudiates  the  idea  of  the  supernatural.  That  is,  it  does 
not  admit  that  God  ever  works  except  through  second  causes  or  by 
the  laws  of  nature.  Those  who  adopt  this  view  are  willing  to  ad- 
mit the  derivation  of  species  ;  and  to  concede  that  extant  species 
were  formed  by  the  modifications  of  those  which  preceded  them  ; 
but  maintain  that  they  were  thus  formed  according  to  the  purpose, 
and  by  the  continued  agency,  of  God  ;  an  agency  ever  operative 
in  guiding  the  operation  of  natural  laws  so  that  they  accomplish 
the  designs  of  God.  The  difference  between  this  and  Professor 
Owen's  theory  is,  that  he  does  not  seem  to  admit  of  this  continued 

1  American  Journal  of  Science,  1869,  p.  43. 

2  Ibid.  p.  52.  3  Ibid.  p.  52. 

*  See  Prof.  Owen's  work  on    the  Anatomy  of  Vertebrates,  the  fortieth  chapter,  which 
chapter  was  reprinted  in  the  American  Journal  of  Science  for  January  1869. 


26  PART  I.     Ch.  L  — origin  OF  MAN. 

intelligent  control  of  God  in  nature,  but  refers  everything  to   the 
original,  preordaining  purpose  or  plan  of  the  Divine  Being. 

7.  Filially,  without  pretending  to  exhaust  the  speculations  on 
this  subject,  we  have  what  may  be  called  the  commonly  received  and 
Scriptural  doctrine.  That  doctrine  teaches,  —  (1.)  That  the  uni- 
verse and  all  it  contains  owe  their  existence  to  the  will  and  power 
of  God  ;  that  matter  is  not  eternal,  nor  is  life  self-originating. 
(2.)  God  endowed  matter  with  properties  or  forces,  which  He  up- 
holds, and  in  accordance  with  which  He  works  in  all  the  ordinary 
operations  of  his  providence.  That  is.  He  uses  them  everywhere 
and  constantly,  as  we  use  them  in  our  narrow  sphere.  (3.)  That  in 
the  beoinnins:  He  created,  or  caused  to  be,  every  distinct  kind  of 
plant  and  animal :  "  And  God  said.  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  grass, 
the  herb  yielding  seed,  and  the  fruit-tree  yielding  fruit  after  his 
kind,  whose  seed  is  in  itself,  upon  the  earth  :  and  it  was  so." 
"  And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  the  living  creature  after 
his  kind,  cattle,  and  creeping  thing,  and  beast  of  the  earth  after  his 
kind  :  and  it  was  so."  This  is  the  Scriptural  account  of  the  origin 
of  species.  According  to  this  account  each  species  was  specially 
created,  not  ex  nihilo,  nor  without  the  intervention  of  secondaiy 
causes,  but  nevertheless  originally,  or  not  derived,  evolved,  or 
developed  from  preexisting  species.  These  distinct  species,  or  kinds 
of  plants  and  animals  thus  separately  originated,  are  permanent. 
They  never  pass  from  one  into  the  other.  It  is,  however,  to  be 
remembered  that  species  are  of  two  kinds,  as  naturalists  distinguish 
them,  namely,  natural  and  artificial.  The  former  are  those  whicli 
have  their  foundation  in  nature  ;  which  had  a  distinct  origin,  and 
are  capable  of  indefinite  propagation.  The  latter  are  such  distinc- 
tions as  naturalists  have  made  for  their  own  convenience.  Of 
course,  it  is  not  intended  that  every  one  of  the  so-called  species  of 
plants  and  animals  is  original  and  permanent,  when  the  only  dis- 
tinction between  one  species  and  another  may  be  the  accidental 
shape  of  a  leaf  or  colour  of  a  feather.  It  is  only  of  such  species  as 
have  their  foundation  in  nature  that  originality  and  permanence 
are  asserted.  Artificial  species,  as  they  are  called,  are  simply  vari- 
eties. Fertility  of  offspring  is  the  recognized  criterion  of  sameness 
of  species.  If  what  has  been  just  said  be  granted,  then,  if  at  any 
time  since  the  original  creation,  new  species  have  appeared  on  the 
earth,  they  owe  their  existence  to  the  immediate  intervention  of 
God. 

Here  then  are  at  least  seven  different  views  as  to  the  origin  of 
species.     How  is  it  possible  for  science   to.  decide  between  them  ? 


§2.]  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL  THEORIES.  2i 

Science  has  to  do  with  the  facts  and  laws  of  nature.  But  here  the 
question  concerns  the  origin  of  such  facts.  "  Here,"  says  Dr. 
Gray,  "  proofs,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  are  not  to  be  had. 
We  are  beyond  the  region  of  demonstration,  and  have  only  proba- 
bilities to  consider."  ^  Christians  have  a  right  to  protest  against 
the  arraying  of  probabilities  against  the  clear  teachings  of  Scrip- 
ture. It  is  not  easy  to  estimate  the  evil  that  is  done  by  eminent 
men  throwing  tiie  weight  of  their  authority  on  the  side  of  unbelief, 
influenced  by  a  mere  balance  of  probabilities  in  one  department, 
to  the  neglect  of  the  most  convincing  proofs  of  a  different  kind. 
They  treat,  for  example,  the  question  of  the  unity  of  the  human 
race,  exclusively  as  a  zoological  question,  and  ignore  the  testimony 
of  history,  of  language,  and  of  Scripture.  Thus  they  often  decide 
against  the  Bible  on  evidence  that  would  not  determine  an  intelli- 
gent jury  in  a  suit  for  twenty  shillings. 

Admitted  Difficulties  in  the  Way  of  the  Darwinian  Theory. 

One  of  the  great  excellences  of  Mr.  Darwin  is  his  candor.  He 
acknowledges  that  there  are  grave  objections  against  the  doctrine 
which  he  endeavours  to  establish.  He  admits  that  if  one  species 
is  derived  by  slow  gradations  from  another,  it  would  be  natural  to 
expect  the  intermediate  steps,  or  connecting  links,  to  be  every- 
where visible.  But  he  acknowledges  that  such  are  not  to  be  found, 
that  during  the  whole  of  the  historical  period,  species  have  re- 
mained unchanged.  They  are  now  precisely  what  they  were 
thousands  of  years  ago.  There  is  not  the  slightest  indication  of 
any  one  passing  into  another ;  or  of  a  lower  advancing  towards  a 
higher.  This  is  admitted.  The  only  answer  to  the  difficulty 
thus  presented  is,  that  the  change  of  species  is  so  slow  a  process 
that  no  indications  can  be  reasonably  expected  in  the  few  thou- 
sand years  embraced  within  the  limits  of  history.  When  it  is  fur- 
ther objected  that  geology  presents  the  same  difficulty,  that  the 
genera  and  species  of  fossil  animals  are  just  as  distinct  as  those 
now  living  ;  that  new  species  appear  at  certain  epochs  entirely  dif- 
ferent from  those  which  preceded ;  that  the  most  perfect  specimens 
of  these  species  often  appear  at  the  beginning  of  a  geologic  period 
and  not  toward  its  close  ;  the  answer  is  that  the  records  of  geology 
are  too  imperfect,  to  give  us  full  knowledge  on  this  subject :  that 
innumerable  intermediate  and  transitional  forms  may  have  passed 
away  and  left  no  trace  of  their  existence.     All  this  amounts  to  an 

1  Atlantic  Monthly,  August,  1860,  p.  230. 


28  PART  II.     Ch.   I.  —  ORIGIN   OF  MAN. 

admission  that  all  history  and  all  geology  are  against  the  theory  ; 
that  they  not  only  do  not  furnish  any  facts  in  its  support,  but  that 
they  do  furnish  facts  which,  so  far  as  our  knowledge  extends,  con- 
tradict it.  In  reference  to  tiiese  objections  from  geology,  Mr.  Dar- 
win says,  "  I  can  answer  these  questions  and  objections  only  on 
the  supposition  that  the  geological  record  is  far  more  imperfect 
than  most  geologists  believe.  The  number  of  specimens  in  all  our 
museums  is  absolutely  as  nothing  compared  with  the  countless  gen- 
erations of  countless  species  which  have  certainly  existed."  ^  Nev- 
ertheless the  record,  as  far  as  it  goes,  is  against  the  theory. 

With  regard  to  the  more  serious  objection  that  the  theory  assumes 
that  matter  does  the  work  of  mind,  that  design  is  accomplished 
without  any  designer,  Mv.  Darwin  is  equally  candid.  "  Nothing 
at  first,"  he  says,  "  can  appear  more  difficult  to  believe  than  that 
the  more  complex  organs  and  instincts  have  been  perfected,  not  by 
means  superior  to,  though  analogous  with,  human  reason,  but  by 
the  accumulation  of  innumerable  slight  variations,  each  good  for  the 
individual  possessor.  Nevertheless,  this  difficult}'',  though  appearing 
to  our  imagination  insuperably  great,  cannot  be  considered  real,  if 
we  admit  the  following  propositions,  namely,  that  all  parts  of  the 
organization  and  instincts  offer  at  least  individual  differences, — 
that  there  is  a  struggle  for  existence  leading  to  the  preservation 
of  profitable  deviations  of  structure  or  instinct, — and,  lastly,  that 
gradations  in  the  state  of  perfection  of  each  oi'gan  may  have  existed, 
each  good  of  its  kind."  ^ 

Again,  he  says,  "  Although  the  belief  that  an  organ  so  perfect 
as  the  eye  could  have  been  formed  by  natural  selection,  is  more 
than  enough  to  stagger  any  one ;  yet  in  the  case  of  any  organ,  if 
we  know  of  a  long  series  of  gradations  in  complexity,  each  good  for 
its  possessor;  then,  under  changing  conditions  of  life,  there  is  no 
logical  impossibility  in  the  acquirement  of  any  conceivable  degree 
of  perfection  through  natural  selection."  ^  Mr.  Darwin  refuses  to 
be  staggered  by  that  which  he  says  is  enough  to  stagger  any  one. 
Give  him  a  sufficient  number  of  millions  of  years,  and  fortuitous 
complications  may  accomplish  anything.  If  a  rude  piece  of  flint 
be  found  in  deposits,  it  is  declared  to  be  the  work  of  man,  because 
it  indicates  design,  while  such  an  organ  as  the  eye  may  be  formed 
by  natural  selection  acting  blindly.  This,  Dr.  Gray  says  in  his 
apology,  is,  or  would  be,  a  strange  contradiction. 

1   Origin  of  Species,  p.  650.  *  Ibid.  p.  545. 

8  Ibid.  p.  251. 


§2.]  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL   THEORIES.  29 

Sterility  of  Syhrids. 
The  immutability  of  species  is  stamped  on  tlie  very  face  of  nature. 
What  the  letters  of  a  book  would  be  if  all  were  thrown  in  confu- 
sion, the  genera  and  species  of  plants  and  animals  would  be,  if  they 
were,  as  Darwin's  theory  assumes,  in  a  state  of  constant  variation, 
and  that  in  every  possible  direction.  All  line-marks  would  be  oblit- 
erated, and  the  thoughts  of  God,  as  species  have  been  called,  would 
be  obliterated  from  his  works.  To  prevent  this  confusion  of 
"  kind,"  it  has  been  established  as  a  law  of  nature  that  animals 
of  different  "kinds"  cannot  mingle  and  produce  something  differ- 
ent from  either  parent,  to  be  again  mingled  and  confused  with 
other  animals  of  a  still  different  kind.  In  other  words,  it  is  a  law 
of  nature,  and  therefore  a  law  of  God,  that  hybrids  should  be 
sterile.  This  fact  Mr.  Darwin  does  not  deny.  Neither  does  he 
deny  the  weight  of  the  argument  derived  from  it  against  his  theory. 
He  only,  as  in  the  cases  already  mentioned,  endeavours  to  account 
for  the  fact.  Connecting  links  between  species  are  missing ;  but 
they  may  have  perished.  Hybrids  are  sterile ;  but  that  may  be 
accounted  for  in  some  other  way  without  assuming  that  it  was 
designed  to  secure  the  permanence  of  species.  When  a  great  fact 
in  nature  is  found  to  secure  a  most  important  end  in  natui'e,  it  is 
fair  to  infer  that  it  was  designed  to  accomplish  that  end,  and  con- 
sequently that  end  is  not  to  be  overlooked  or  denied. 

Greographieal  Distribution. 

Mr.  Darwin  is  equally  candid  in  reference  to  another  objection 
to  his  doctrine.  "  Turning  to  geographical  distribution,"  he  says,^ 
"  the  difficulties  encountered  on  the  theory  of  descent  with  modifi- 
cation are  serious  enough.  All  the  individuals  of  the  same  species, 
and  all  the  species  of  the  same  genus,  or  even  higher  group,  must 
have  descended  from  common  parents ;  and  therefore,  in  however 
distant  and  isolated  parts  of  the  world  they  may  now  be  found,  they 
must  in  the  course  of  successive  generations  have  travelled  from 
some  one  point  to  all  the  others."  When  it  is  remembered  that 
this  is  true  of  the  mollusks  and  Crustacea,  animals  whose  power  of 
locomotion  is  very  limited,  this  almost  universal  distribution  from 
one  centre  would  seem  to  ba  an  impossibility.  Darwin's  answer 
to  this  is  the  same  as  to  the  difficulties  already  mentioned.  He 
throws  himself  on  the  possibilities  of  unlimited  duration.  Nobody 
can  tell  what  may  have  happened  during  the  untold  ages  of  the 
1  Origin  of  Species,  p.  547. 


30  PART  U.     Ch.  L  — origin   OF  MAN. 

past.  "  Looking  to  geographical  distribution,"  he  says,  "  if  we 
admit  that  there  has  been  througli  tlie  long  course  of  ages  much 
mio-ration  from  one  part  of  the  world  to  another,  owing  to  former 
climatal  and  geographical  changes  and  to  the  many  occasional  and 
unknown  means  of  dispersal,  tlien  we  can  understand,  on  the  the- 
ory of  descent  with  modification,  most  of  the  great  leading  facts  in 
distribution."  ^  Every  one  must  see  how  inconclusive  is  all  such 
reasoning.  If  we  admit  that  many  unknown  things  may  have 
happened  in  the  boundless  past,  then  we  can  understand  most,  but 
not  all,  of  the  facts  which  stand  opposed  to  the  theory  of  the  deri- 
vation of  species.  The  same  remark  may  be  made  in  reference  to 
the  constant  appeal  to  the  unknown  effects  of  unlimited  durations. 
"  The  chief  cause,"  says  Mr.  Darwin,  "  of  our  natural  unwilling- 
ness to  admit  that  one  species  has  given  birth  to  other  and  distinct 
species,  is  that  we  are  always  slow  in  admitting  any  great  change 

of  which  we  do  not  see  the  steps The  mind  cannot  possibly 

grasp  the  full  meaning  of  the  term  of  even  ten  million  years  ;  it 
cannot  add  up  and  perceive  the  full  effects  of  many  slight  variations 
accumulated  during  an  almost  infinite  number  of  generations."  ^ 
If  we  say  that  the  ape  during  the  historic  period  extending  over 
thousands  of  years  has  not  made  the  slightest  approximation  towards 
becoming  a  man,  we  are  told,  Ah !  but  you  do  not  know  what  he 
will  do  in  ten  millions  of  years.  To  which  it  is  a  sufficient  reply 
to  ask,  How  much  is  ten  million  times  nothing  ? 

;  Ordinary  men  reject  this  Darwinian  theory  with  indignation  as 
well  as  Avith  decision,  not  only  because  it  calls  upon  them  to  accept 
the  possible  as  demonstrably  true,  but  because  it  ascribes  to  blind, 
unintelligent  causes  the  wonders  of  purpose  and  design  which  the 
world  everywhere  exhibits  ;  and  because  it  effectually  banishes 
God  from  his  works.  To  such  men  it  is  a  satisfaction  to  know  that 
the  theory  is  rejected  on  scientific  grounds  by  the  great  majority 
of  scientific  men.  Mr.  Darwin  himself  says,  "  The  several  diffi- 
culties here  discussed,  namely — that,  though  we  find  in  our  geo- 
logical formations  many  links  between  the  species  which  now  exist 
and  which  formerly  existed,  we  do  not  find  infinitely  numerous 
fine  transitional  forms  closely  joining  them  all  together  ;  the  sudden 
manner  in  which  several  whole  groups  of  species  first  appear  in 
our  European  formations  ;  the  almost  entire  absence,  as  at  present 
known,  of  formations  rich  in  fossils  beneath  the  Cambrian  strata,  — 
are  all  undoubtedly  of  the  most  serious  nature.  We  see  this  in  the 
fact     tliat    tlie    most   eminent    palEeontologists,    namely,    Cuvier, 

1   Origin  of  Species,  p.  564.  ^  J^^'i-  V-  570. 


§  2.]  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL  THEORIES.  31 

Agassiz,  Barrande,  Pictet,  Falconer,  E.  Forbes,  etc.,  and  all  our 
greatest  geologists,  as  Lyell,  Murchison,  Sedgwick,  etc.,  have 
unanimously,  often  vehemently,  maintained  the  immutability  of 
species."  ^ 

In  1830  there  was  a  prolonged  discussion  of  this  subject  in 
the  Academie  des  Sciences  in  Paris,  Cuvier  taking  the  side  of 
the  permanence  of  species,  and  of  creation  and  organization  gov- 
erned by  final  purpose  ;  while  GeofFroy  St.  Hilaire  took  the  side 
of  the  derivation  and  mutability  of  species,  and  "  denied,"  as 
Professor  Owen  says,  "  evidence  of  design,  and  protested  against 
the  deduction  of  a  purpose."  The  decision  was  almost  unani- 
mously in  favour  of  Cuvier  ;  and  from  1830  to  1860  there  was 
scarcely  a  voice  raised  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  which  Cuvier  ad- 
vocated. This,  as  Biichner  thinks,  was  the  triumph  of  empiricism, 
appealing  to  facts,  over  philosophy  guided  by  "  Apriorische  Spec- 
ulationen."  Professor  Agassiz,  confessedly  the  first  of  living  nat- 
uralists, thus  closes  his  review  of  Darwin's  book :  "  Were  the 
transmutation  theory  true,  the  geological  record  should  exhibit  an 
uninterrupted,  succession  of  types  blending  gradually  into  one 
another.  The  fact  is  that  throughout  all  geological  times  each 
period  is  characterized  by  definite  specific  types,  belonging  to  defi- 
nite genera,  and  these  to  definite  families,  referable  to  definite 
orders,  constituting  definite  classes  and  definite  branches,  built 
upon  definite  plans.  Until  the  facts  of  nature  are  shown  to  iiave 
been  mistaken  by  those  who  have  collected  them,  and  that  they 
have  a  different  meaning  from  that  now  generally  assigned  to  them, 
I  shall  therefore  consider  the  transmutation  theory  as  a  scientific 
mistake,  untrue  in  its  facts,  unscientific  in  its  method,  and  mis- 
chievous in  its  tendency."  ^     If  species,  then,  are  immutable,  their 

1  Origin  of  Species,  ]>.  383.  In  an  earlier  edition  of  his  work  he  included  Professor  Owen's 
name  in  this  list,  which  he  now  omits,  and  he  also  withdraws  that  of  Lyell;  addinjif  to  the 
passage  above  quoted  the  words,  "  But  Sir  Charles  Lyell  now  gives  the  support  of  his  high 
authority  to  the  opposite  side."  Professor  Owen,  as  shown  above,  although  now  admitting 
the  mutability  of  species,  is  very  far  from  adopting  Mr.  Darwin's  theory.  The  essential 
element  of  that  theory  is  the  denial  of  teleology;  the  assertion  that  species  owe  their  origin 
to  ihe  unintelligent  operation  of  natural  causes.  This  Owen  distinctly  denies.  "Assum- 
ing, then,"  he  sa\'s,  "  that  Paheolkerium  did  ultimately  become  Equus,  I  gain  no  conception 
of  the  operation  of  the  etJective  force  by  personifying  as  '  Nature  '  the  aggregate  of  beings 
which  compose  the  universe,  or  the  laws  which  govern  these  beings,  b}-  giving  to  my  per- 
sonification an  attribute  which  can  properly  be  predicated  only  of  intelligence,  and  by  sav- 
ing, '  Nature  has  selected  the  mid-hoof  and  rejected  the  others.'  "  American  Journal  of 
Science,  second  series,  vo'.  xlvii.  p.  4L  As  to  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  unless  he  has  become  a 
new  man  since  the  publication  of  the  ninth  edition  of  his  Principles  of  Gcdogy  in  1853,  he 
is  as  far  as  I'nifessor  Owen  from  adi)))ting  the  Darwinian  theory;  although  he  may  admit, 
ill  a  certa'n  sense,  tiie  derivation  of  species. 

2  American  Journal,  July,  18G0,  p.  154. 


32  PART  n.   Ch.  l  — origin  of  man. 

existence  must  be  due  to  the  agency  of  God,  mediate  or  immediate, 
and  in  either  case  so  exercised  as  to  make  them  answer  a  thought 
and  purpose  in  the  divine  mind.  And,  more  especially,  man  does 
not  owe  his  origin  to  the  gradual  development  of  a  lower  form  of 
irrational  life,  but  to  the  energy  of  his  Maker  in  whose  image  he 
was  created. 

Pangenesis. 

Mr.  Darwin  refers,  in  the  "  Origin  of  Species,"^  to  "  tlie  hypoth- 
esis of  Pangenesis,"  which,  he  says,  he  had  developed  in  another 
work.  As  this  hypothesis  is  made  subservient  to  the  one  under 
consideration,  it  serves  to  illustrate  its  nature  and  gives  an  insight 
into  the  character  of  the  writer's  mind.  Mr.  Mivart  says  that  the 
hypothesis  of  Pangenesis  may  be  stated  as  follows  :  "  That  each 
living  organism  is  ultimately  made  up  of  an  almost  infinite  number 
of  minute  particles,  or  organic  atoms,  termed  '  gemmules,'  each  of 
which  has  the  power  of  reproducing  its  kind.  Moreover,  that  these 
particles  circulate  freely  about  the  organism  which  is  made  up  of 
them,  and  are  derived  from  all  parts  of  all  the  organs  of  the  less 
remote  ancestors  of  each  such  organism  durino;  all  the  states  and 
stages  of  such  several  ancestors'  existence  ;  and  therefore  of  the 
several  states  of  each  of  such  ancestors'  organs.  That  such  a  com- 
plete collection  of  gemmules  is  aggregated  in  each  ovum  and  sper- 
matozoon in  most  animals,  and  each  part  capable  of  reproducing 
by  gemmation  (budding)  in  the  lowest  animals  and  plants.  There- 
fore in  many  of  such  lower  organisms  such  a  congeries  of  ancestral 
gemmules  must  exist  in  every  part  of  their  bodies,  since  in  them 
every  part  is  capable  of  reproducing  by  gemmation.  Mr.  Darwin 
must  evidently  admit  this,  since  he  says,  '  It  has  often  been  said 
by  naturalists  that  each  cell  of  a  plant  has  the  actual  or  potential 
capacity  of  reproducing  the  whole  plant ;  but  it  has  this  power 
only  in  virtue  of  containing  gemmules  derived  from  every  part.' "  ^ 
These  gemmules  are  organic  atoms ;  they  are  almost  infinite 
in  number ;  they  are  derived  from  all  the  organs  of  the  less 
remote  ancestors  of  the  plant  or  animal ;  they  are  stored  in  every 
ovum  or  spermatozoon  ;  they  are  capable  of  reproduction.  But 
reproduction,  as  involving  the  control  of  physical  causes  to  accom- 
plish a  purpose,  is  a  work  of  intelligence.  These  inconceivably 
numerous  and  minute  gemmules  are,  therefore,  the  seats  of  intelli- 
gence. Surely  this  is  not  science.  Any  theory  which  needs  the 
support  of  such  a  hypothesis  must  soon  be  abandoned.     It  would 

1  Page  196. 

2  Genesis  of  Species,  by  St.  George  Mivart,  F.  K.  S.    London,  1871,  chap.  x.  p.  208. 


\ 


§3.]  ANTIQUITY   OF  MAN.  83 

be  far  easier  to  believe  in  fairies  forming  every  plant,  than  in  these 
gemmules. 

Finally,  it  may  be  noticed  that  Mr.  Wallace,  although  advocating 
the  doctrine  of  "  Natural  Selection,"  contends  that  it  is  not  appli- 
cable to  man  ;  that  it  will  not  account  for  his  original  or  present 
state  ;  and  that  it  is  impossible,  on  Mr.  Darwin's  theory,  to  account 
for  man's  physical  organization,  for  his  mental  powers,  or  for  his 
moral  nature.  To  this  subject  the  tenth  chapter  of  his  work  is 
devoted. 

§  3.  Antiquity  of  Man. 

"Anthropologists  are  now,"  as  we  are  told,  "  pretty  well  agreed 
that  man  is  not  a  recent  introduction  into  the  earth.  All  who  have 
studied  the  question,  now  admit  that  his  antiquity  is  very  great; 
and  that,  though  we  have  to  some  extent  ascertained  the  mini- 
mum of  time  during  which  he  must  have  existed,  we  have  made 
no  approximation  towards  determining  that  far  greater  period  dur- 
ing which  he  may  have,  and  probably  has,  existed.  We  can  with 
tolerable  certainty  affirm  that  man  must  have  inhabited  the  earth 
a  thousand  centuries  ago,  but  we  cannot  assert  that  he  positively 
did  not  exist,  or  that  there  is  any  good  evidence  against  his  having 
existed,  for  a  period  of  ten  thousand  centuries."  ^ 

On  this  it  may  be  remarked,  first,  that  it  is  a  historical  fact  that 
nothing  is  less  reliable  than  these  calculations  of  time.  A  volume 
might  be  filled  with  examples  of  the  mistakes  of  naturalists  in  this 
matter.  The  world  has  not  forgotten  the  exultation  of  the  enemies 
of  the  Bible  when  the  number  of  successive  layers  of  lava  on  the 
sides  of  Mount  Etna  was  found  to  be  so  great  as  to  require,  as  was 
said,  thousands  upon  thousands  of  yeai's  for  their  present  condition. 
All  that  has  passed  away.  Mr.  Lyell  calculated  that  two  hundred 
and  twenty  thousand  years  w^ere  necessary  to  account  for  changes 
now  iroino;  on  on  the  coast  of  Sweden.  Later  geologists  reduce  the 
time  to  one  tenth  of  that  estimate.  A  piece  of  pottery  was  dis- 
covered deeply  buried  under  the  deposits  at  the  mouth  of  the  Nile. 
It  was  confidently  asserted  that  the  deposit  could  not  have  been 
made  during  the  historic  period,  until  it  was  proved  that  the  article 
in  question  was  of  Roman  manufacture.  Sober  men  of  science, 
therefore,  have  no  confidence  in  these  calculations  requiring  thou- 
sands of  centuries,  or  even  millions  of  years,  for  the  production  of 
effects  subsequent  to  the  great  geological  epochs. 

The  second  remark  in  reference  to  this  great  antiquity  claimed 
for  the  human  race,  is  that  the  reasons  assigned  for  it  are,  in  the 

1    (Vallace  cm  Natural  Selection,  p.  303. 

VOL.    II.  3 


34  PART  11.    Ch.   I.  — origin   OF  MAN. 

judgment  of  the  most  eminent  men  of  science,  unsatisfactory. 
The  facts  urged  to  prove  that  men  have  lived  for  an  indefinite 
number  of  ages  on  the  earth,  are,  (1.)  The  existence  of  villages 
built  on  piles,  now  submerged  in  lakes  in  Switzerland  and  in  some 
other  places,  which,  it  is  assumed,  are  of  great  antiquity.  (2.)  The 
discovery  of  human  remains  in  a  fossil  state  in  deposits  to  which 
geologists  assign  an  age  counted  by  tens,  or  hundreds,  of  thousands 
of  years.  (3.)  The  discovery  of  utensils  of  different  kinds  made 
of  flint,  in  connection  with  the  remains  of  extinct  animals. 
(4.)  The  early  separation  of  men  into  the  distinct  races  in  which 
they  now  exist.  On  this  point  Sir  Charles  Lyell  says  :  "  Natural- 
ists have  long  felt  that  to  render  probable  the  received  opinion  that 
all  the  leading  varieties  of  the  human  family  have  originally  sprung 
from  a  single  pair  (a  doctrine  against  which  there  appears  to  me  to 
be  no  sound  objection),  a  much  greater  lapse  of  time  is  required  for 
the  slow  and  gradual  formation  of  races  (such  as  the  Caucasian, 
Mongolian,  and  Negro)  than  is  embraced  in  any  of  the  popular 
systems  of  chronology."  The  Caucasian  and  the  Negro  are  dis- 
tinctly marked  in  the  Egyptian  monuments  to  which  an  antiquity 
of  three  thousand  years  is  ascribed.  We  must,  therefore,  he 
argues,  allow  "  for  a  vast  series  of  antecedent  ages  "  to  account 
for  the  gradual  formation  of  these  distinct  races. ^  In  addition  to 
all  these  arguments,  it  is  contended  that  monuments  and  records 
exist  which  prove  the  existence  of  man  on  the  earth  long  before 
the  period  assigned  to  his  creation  in  the  Bible. 

Lake  Dioellings. 

In  many  of  the  lakes  of  Switzerland  piles  have  been  discovered 
worn  down  to  the  surface  of  the  mud,  or  projecting  slightly  above 
it,  which  once  supported  human  habitations.  These  are  so  numer- 
ous as  to  render  it  evident  that  whole  villages  were  thus  sustained 
over  the  surface  of  the  water.  These  villages,  "  nearly  all  of 
them,"  are  "  of  unknown  date,  but  the  most  ancient  of"  them 
"certainly  belonged  to  the  age  of  stone,  for  hundreds  of  implements 
resembling  those  of  the  Danish  shell-mounds  and  peat  mosses  have 
been  dredged  up  from  the  mud  into  which  the  piles  were  driven." 
Numerous  bones  of  no  less  than  fifty-four  species  of  animals  have 
been  dug  up  from  these  localities,  all  of  which,  Avitli  one  exception, 
are  still  living  in  Europe.     The  remains  of  several  domesticated 

1  Principles  of  Geology,  by  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  F.  R.  S.,  ninth  edition,  Boston,  1853,  p.  660. 
Also,  The  Geoloyical  Evidences  of  the  Antiquity  of  Man,  by  the  same  writer,  Philadelphia, 
1863,  p.  385. 


§3.]  ANTIQUITY   OF  MAN.  35 

animals,  as    the    ox,   sheep,  goat,  and   dog,  are    included   in    the 
number.^ 

There  is  evidently  in  all  this  no  proof  of  great  antiquity.  Even 
as  late  as  during  the  last  century,  similar  huts,  supported  on  piles, 
were  to  be  seen.  All  the  animal  remains  found  are  of  extant 
species.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  these  lake  dwellings  were 
even  as  old  as  the  time  of  the  Romans.  The  fact  relied  upon  is 
the  absence  of  metal,  and  the  presence  of  stone  implements. 
Hence,  it  is  inferred  that  these  villao-es  belonged  to  the  "  Stone 
Age."  To  this  succeeded  the  "  Bronze  Age,"  and  to  that  the 
Age  of  Iron.  Sir  Charles  Lyell  informs  us  that  the  Swiss  geolo- 
gists, as  represented  by  M.  Morlot,  assign  "  to  the  bronze  age  a 
date  of  between  three  thousand  and  four  thousand  years,  and  to 
the  stone  period  an  age  of  five  thousand  to  seven  thousand."^ 

It  is,  however,  a  mere  arbitrary  speculation  that  there  ever  was 
a  stone  age.  It  is  founded  on  the  assumption  that  the  original 
condition  of  man  was  one  of  barbarism,  from  which  he  elevated 
himself  by  slow  degrees  ;  during  the  first  period  of  his  progress 
he  used  only  implements  of  stone  ;  then  those  of  bronze  ;  and  then 
those  of  iron  ;  and  that  thousands  of  years  elapsed  before  the  race 
passed  from  one  of  these  stages  of  progress  to  another.  Hence, 
if  remains  of  men  are  found  anywhere  in  coimection  with  stone 
implements,  they  are  referred  to  the  stone  age.  According  to  this 
mode  of  reasoning,  if  in  an  Indian  village  flint  arrow-heads  and 
hatchets  should  be  found,  the  inference  Avould  be  that  the  whole 
world  was  in  barbarism  when  those  implements  were  used.  Ad- 
mittincr  that  at  the  time  the  lake  dwellinos  were  inhabited,  the 
people  of  Switzerland,  and  even  all  the  people  of  Europe,  were 
unacquainted  with  the  iise  of  the  metals,  that  would  not  prove  that 
civilization  was  not  at  its  height  in  Egypt  or  India.  Moreover, 
the  assumption  that  the  original  state  of  man  was  one  of  barbarism, 
is  not  only  contrary  to  the  Bible  and  to  the  convictions  of  the  great 
body  of  the  learned,  but,  as  is  believed,  to  the  plainest  historical 
facts. 

Fossil  Human  Remains. 

Much  more  weight  in  this  discussion  is  attached  to  the  discovery 
of  human  remains  in  the  same  localities  and  under  the  same  circum- 
stances with  those  of  animals  now  extinct.  From  this  it  Is  inferred 
that  man  must  have  lived  when  those  animals  still  inhabited  the 
earth.  These  human  remains  are  not  found  in  any  of  the  ancient 
fossiliferous  rocks.     The  Scriptural  fact  that  man  was  the  last  of 

1  Antiquity  of  Man,  chap.  ii.  p.  17.  ^   Ibid.  p.  28. 


86  PART  n.   Ch.  l  — origin  of  man. 

the  living  creatures  which  proceeded  from  the  hand  of  God,  stands 
unimpeaclied  by  any  scientific  fact.  A  nearly  perfect  human  skel- 
eton was  found  imbedded  in  a  limestone  rock  on  the  island  of 
Guadaloupe.  That  rock,  however,  is  of  modern  origin,  and  is  still 
in  process  of  formation.  The  age  assigned  to  this  fossil  is  only 
about  two  hundred  years.  A  fragment  of  conglomerate  rock  was 
obtained  at  the  depth  of  ten  feet  beloAV  the  bed  of  the  river  Dove, 
in  Enixland,  containing  silver  coins  of  the  reign  of  Edward  the 
First.  This  shows  that  it  does  not  require  many  years  to  form 
rocks,  and  to  bury  them  deeply  under  the  surface.  The  remains 
on  which  stress  is  laid  are  found  only  in  caverns  and  buried  under 
deposits  of  peat  or  of  earthy  matter.  Geologists  seem  to  be  agreed 
as  to  the  fact  that  human  bones  have  been  found  in  certain  caves 
in  France,  Belgium,  and  England  intimately  associated  with  the 
remains  of  animals  now  living,  and  with  those  of  a  few  of  the 
extinct  races. 

Tiie  fact  being  admitted,  the  question  is,  How  is  it  to  be  ac- 
counted for  ?  This  juxtaposition  is  no  certain  proof  of  contempora- 
neousness. These  caverns,  once  the  resort  of  wild  beasts,  became 
to  men  places  of  concealment,  of  defence,  of  worship,  or  of  sepul- 
ture, and,  therefore,  as  Sir  Charles  Lyell  himself  admits,  "  It  is 
not  on  the  evidence  of  such  intermixtures  that  we  ought  readily  to 
admit  either  the  high  antiquity  of  the  human  race,  or  the  recent 
date  of  certain  lost  species  of  quadrupeds."  ^ 

In  immediate  connection  with  the  passage  just  referred  to,  Lyell 
sugirests  another  method  by  which  the  remains  of  animals  belong- 
incr  to  very  different  ages  of  the  world  might  become  mixed  to- 
gether.  That  is,  "open  fissures"  which  "serve  as  natural  pit- 
falls." He  quotes  the  following  account  from  Professor  Sedgwick 
of  a  chasm  of  enormous  but  unknown  depth,  Avhich  "is  surrounded 
by  grassy  shelving  banks,  and  many  animals,  tempted  toward  its 
brink,  have  fallen  down  and  perished  in  it.  The  approach  of 
cattle  is  now  prevented  by  a  strong  lofty  wall ;  but  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that,  during  the  last  two  or  three  thousand  years,  great 
masses  of  bony  breccia  must  have  accumulated  in  the  lower  parts 
of  the  great  fissure,  which  probably  descends  through  the  whole 
thickness  of  the  scar-limestone  to  the  depth  of  perhaps  five  or 
six  hundred  feet."  To  this  Lyell  adds,  "  When  any  of  these 
natural  pit-falls  happen  to  communicate  with  lines  of  subterranean 
caverns,  the  bones,  earth,  and  breccia  may  sink  by  their  own 
weight,  or  be  washed  into  the  vaults  below."  ^ 

1  Principles  of  Geology,  ninth  edition,  p.  740. 

2  Joid.  pp.  740,  741. 


§3.]  ANTIQUITY   OF  MAN.  37 

There  is  a  third  way  in  which  this  intermingling  of  the  bones 
of  animals  of  different  ages  may  be  accounted  for.  With  legard 
to  the  remarkable  caverns  in  the  province  of  Liege,  Sir  Charles 
Lyell  says  that  Dr.  Schmerling,  the  naturalist,  by  whom  they  had 
been  carefully  and  laboriously  examined,  did  not  think  they  were 
"  dens  of  wild  beasts,  but  that  their  organic  and  inorganic  contents 
had  been  swept  into  them  by  streams  communicating  with  the  sur- 
face of  the  country.  The  bones,  he  suggested,  may  often  have 
been  rolled  in  the  beds  of  such  streams  before  they  reached  their 
underground  destination."  ^  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  no  conclu- 
sive argument  to  prove  that  man  was  contemporary  with  certain 
extinct  animals  can  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that  their  remains  have 
in  some  rare  instances  been  found  in  the  same  localities. 

Human  Bones  found  deeply  buried. 

Still  less  weight  is  to  be  attached  to  the  fact  that  human  bones 
have  been  found  deej>ly  buried  in  the  earth.  Every  one  knows 
that  great  changes  have  been  made  in  the  earth's  surface  within 
the  historic  period.  Such  changes  are  produced  sometimes  by  the 
slow  operation  of  the  causes  which  have  buried  the  foundations  of 
such  ancient  cities  as  Jerusalem  and  Rome  far  beneath  the  present 
surface  of  the  ground.  At  other  times  they  have  been  brought 
about  by  sudden  catastrophes.  It  is  not  surprising  that  human 
remains  should  be  found  in  peat-bogs,  if  as  Sir  Charles  Lyell  tells 
us,  "  All  the  coins,  axes,  arms,  and  other  utensils  found  in  British 
and  French  mosses,  are  Roman  ;  so  that  a  considerable  portion  of 
tlie  peat  in  Euro])ean  peat-bogs  is  evidently  not  more  ancient  than 
the  age  of  Julius  Caesar."  ^ 

The  data  by  which  the  rate  of  deposits  is  determined  are  so 
uncertain  that  no  dependence  can  be  placed  upon  them.  Sir 
Charles  Lyell  says,  "  the  lowest  estimate  of  the  time  required  "  for 
the  formation  of  the  existing  delta  of  the  Mississippi,  is  more  than 
one  hundred  thousand  years. ^  According  to  the  careful  examina- 
tion made  by  gentlemen  of  the  Coast  Survey  and  other  United 
States  officers,  the  time  during  which  the  delta  has  been  in  progress 
is  four  thousand  four  hundred  years.*  Since  the  memory  of  man,  or, 
since  fishing-liuts  have  been  built  on  the  coasts  of  Sweden,  there 
has  been  such  a  subsidence  of  the  coast  that  "  a  fishing-hut  having 

1  Antiquity  of  Man,  p.  64.  2  Principles  of  Geology,  p.  721. 

3  Antiquity  of  Man,  p.  43. 

^  See  Report  upon  the  Physics  and  Hydraulics  of  the  Mississippi  River,  etc.,  by  Captain  A. 
A.  Humphrej's,  and  Lieutenant  H.  L.  Abbott,  Corps  of  Topographical  Engineers,  U.  S. 
Army,  1861,"p.  435. 


38  PART  n.   ch.  l  — origin  of  man. 

a  rude  fire-place  within,  was  struck,  in  digging  a  canal,  at  a  depth 
of  sixty  feet."  ^  "  At  the  earthquake  in  1819  about  the  Delta  of 
the  Indus,  an  area  of  two  thousand  square  miles  became  an  inland 
sea,  and  the  fort  and  village  of  Sindree  sunk  till  the  tops  of  the 
houses  were  just  above  the  water.  Five  and  a  half  miles  from 
Sindree,  parallel  with  this  sunken  area,  a  region  was  elevated  ten 
feet  above  the  delta,  fifty  miles  long  and  in  some  parts  ten  broad."  ^ 
While  such  changes,  secular  and  paroxysmal,  gradual  and  sudden, 
have  been  in  operation  for  thousands  of  years,  it  is  evident  that 
the  intermincvlincr  of  the  remains  of  recent  with  those  of  extinct 
races  of  animals  furnishes  no  proof  that  the  former  were  contem- 
poraneous with  the  latter. 

Flint  Implements. 

Quite  as  much  stress  has  been  laid  on  the  discovery  of  certain 
implements  made  of  flint  under  deposits  which,  it  is  contended,  are 
of  such  age  as  prove  that  man  must  have  existed  on  the  earth  for 
ages  before  the  time  assigned  in  the  Bible  for  his  creation.  To 
this  argument  the  same  answer  is  to  be  o-'ven.  First,  that  the 
presence  of  the  works  of  human  art  in  such  deposits  is  no  proof 
that  men  were  contemporaneous  with  such  deposits ;  in  view 
of  the  upheavals  and  displacements  which  all  geologists  admit  are 
of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  history  of  our  globe.  And  secondly, 
the  facts  themselves  are  disputed,  or  differently  interpreted  by  men 
of  science  of  equal  authority'.  This  is  especially  true  of  the  flint 
arrows,  beads,  and  axes  found  in  the  valley  of  the  Somme  in 
France.^  Lyell  is  confident  that  the  argument  from  them  is  con- 
clusive. Later  examinations,  however,  have  led  others  to  a  differ- 
ent conclusion.  This  is  a  question  for  scientific  men  to  decide 
among  themselves,  and  which  they  alone  are  competent  to  decide. 
So  long,  however,  as  men  of  the  highest  rank  as  naturalists  maintain 
that  science  knows  of  no  facts  inconsistent  with  the  Scriptural  ac- 
count of  the  origin  of  man,  the  friends  of  the  Bible  are  under  no 
obligation  to  depart  from  the  generally  received  interpretation  of 
the  Scriptures  on  this  subject.  Professor  Guyot,  as  all  who  know 
him  or  have  heard  his  public  lectures,  are  vvell  aware,  teaches 
that  there  are  no  known  facts  which  may  not  be  accounted  for  on 
the  assumption  that  man  has  existed  seven  or  eight  thousand  years 
on  this  earth.     It  is  well  known  also  that  this  doctrine,  until  very 

1  Dana's  Manual  of  Geology,  p.  586.  2  idid.  p.  588. 

*  To  these  Lyell  devotes  the  seventh  and  eighth  chapters  of  his  work  on  the  Antiquity  of 
Man. 


§3.]  ANTIQUITY   OF  MAN.  39 

recently,  was  universal  among  scientific  men.  Cuvier  was  so  con- 
vinced on  this  point  that  he  could  hardly  be  brought  to  look  at 
what  purported  to  be  the  fossil  remains  of  man.  This  conviction 
on  his  part,  was  not  a  prejudice  ;  nor  was  it  due  to  a  reverence  for 
the  Bible.  It  was  a  scientific  conviction  founded  on  scientific 
evidence.  The  proofs  from  all  sources  of  the  recent  origin  of  man 
were  considered  such  as  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  his  being 
contemporaneous  with  any  of  the  extinct  races  of  animals.  And 
even  those  who  were  led  to  admit  that  point,  were  in  many  cases 
disposed  to  regard  the  fact  as  proving  not  the  antiquity  of  man, 
but  the  existence  to  a  much  later  period  than  generally  supposed, 
of  animals  now  extinct.  The  occurrence  of  human  relics  with  the 
bones  of  extinct  animals,  "  does  not  seem  to  me,"  says  Prestwich, 
"  to  necessitate  the  carrying  of  man  back  in  past  time,  so  much 
as  the  bringing  forward  of  the  extinct  animals  toward  our  own 
time."  1  The  fact  that  the  monuments  of  human  art  cannot  pre- 
tend to  a  higher  antiquity  than  a  few  thousand  years,  renders  it 
utterly  incredible  that  man  has  existed  on  the  earth  hundreds  of 
thousands  or,  as  Darwirr  supposes,  millions  of  years. 

Argument  from  the  Races  of  Men  and  from  Ancient  Monuments. 

Another  argument  is  founded  on  the  assumption  that  the  differ- 
ence between  the  Caucasian,  Mongolian,  and  negro  races,  which  is 
known  to  have  been  as  distinctly  marked  two  or  three  thousand 
years  before  Christ  as  it  is  now,  must  have  required  countless  ages 
to  develop  and  establish.  To  this  it  is  obvious  to  answer.  First, 
that  differences  equally  great  have  occurred  in  domestic  animals 
within  the  historic  period.  Secondly,  that  marked  varieties  are 
not  unfrequently  produced  suddenly,  and,  so  to  speak,  accidentally. 
Thirdly,  that  these  varieties  of  race  are  not  the  effect  of  the  blind 
operation  of  physical  causes,  but  by  those  causes  as  intelligently 
guided  by  God  for  the  accomplishment  of  some  wise  purpose. 
Animals  living  in  the  arctic  regions  are  not  only  clothed  in  fur  for 
their  protection  from  the  cold,  but  the  color  of  their  clothing 
changes  with  the  season.  So  God  fashions  the  different  races  of 
men  in  their  peculiarities  to  suit  them  to  the  regions  which  they 
inhabit.  Dr.  Livingstone,  the  great  African  traveller,  informs  us  that 
the  negro  type,  as  it  is  popularly  conceived  of,  occurs  very  rarely  in 
Africa,  and  only  in  districts  where  great  heat  prevails  in  connection 
with  great  moisture.  The  tribes  in  the  interior  of  that  continent 
differ  greatly,  he  says,  both  in  hue  and  contour. 

1  Quoted  by  Professor  Dana,  Manual  of  Geology,  p.  582. 


40  PART  n.   Ch.  I  — origin  of  man. 

The  idea  that  it  must  have  taken  countless  ages  for  men  to  rise 
from  the  lowest  barbarism  to  the  state  of  civilization  indicated  by 
the  monuments  of  Egypt,  rests  on  no  better  assumption.  The 
earliest  state  of  man  instead  of  being  his  lowest,  was  in  many 
respects  his  highest  state.  And  our  own  experience  as  a  nation 
shows  that  it  does  not  require  millenniums  for  a  people  to  accom- 
plisli  greater  works  tlian  Egypt  or  India  can  boast.  Two  hundred 
years  ago  this  country  was  a  wilderness  from  the  Atlantic  to  the 
Pacific.  What  is  it  now  ?  According  to  Bunsen  it  would  require 
a  hundred  thousand  years  to  erect  all  these  cities,  and  to  build  all 
these  railroads  and  canals. 

It  is  further  urged  as  a  proof  of  the  great  antiquity  of  man  that 
the  monuments  and  monumental  records  of  Egypt  prove  that  a 
nation  existed  in  the  highest  state  of  civilization  at  the  time  of,  or 
immediately  after,  the  flood.  The  chronology  of  the  Bible,  it  is 
argued,  and  the  chronology  of  Egypt  are  thus  shown  to  be  irrecon- 
cilable. 

In  reference  to  this  difficulty  it  may  be  remarked,  that  the  cal- 
culations of  Egyptologists  are  just  as  precarious,  and  in  many  in- 
stances just  as  extravagant  as  those  of  geologists.  This  is  proved 
by  their  discrepancies.  It  may  be  said,  however,  that  even  the 
most  moderate  students  of  Egyptian  antiquities  assign  a  date  to 
the  reign  of  Manes  and  the  building  of  the  pyramids  inconsistent 
with  the  chronology  of  the  Bible.  To  this  it  may  be  replied  that 
the  chronology  of  the  Bible  is  very  uncertain.  The  data  are  for 
the  most  part  facts  incidentally  stated  ;  that  is,  not  stated  for  the 
purposes  of  chronology.  The  views  most  generally  adopted  rest 
mainly  on  the  authority  of.  Archbishop  Usher,  who  adopted  the 
Hebrew  text  for  his  guide,  and  assumed  that  in  the  genealogical 
tables  each  name  marked  one  generation.  A  large  part,  however, 
of  Biblical  scholars  adopt  the  Septuagint  chronology  in  preference 
to  the  Hebrew ;  so  that  instead  of  four  thousand  years  from  the 
creation  to  the  birth  of  Christ,  we  have  nearly  six  thousand  years. 
Besides  it  is  admitted,  that  the  usual  method  of  calculation  founded 
on  the  genealogical  tables  is  very  uncertain.  The  design  of  those 
tables  is  not  to  give  the  regular  succession  of  births  in  a  given  line, 
but  simply  to  mark  the  descent.  This  Is  just  as  well  done  if  three, 
four,  or  more  generations  be  omitted,  as  if  the  whole  list  were  com- 
plete. Tliat  this  is  the  plan  on  which  these  genealogical  tables  are 
constructed  is  an  admitted  fact.  "  Thus  in  Genesis  xlvi.  18,  after 
recording  the  sons  of  Zilpah,  her  grandsons  and  her  great-grand- 
sons, the  writer  adds,  '  These  are  the  sons  of  Zilpah  ....  and 


§3.]  ANTIQUITY   OF  MAN.  41 

these  she  bare  unto  Jacob,  even  sixteen  souls.'  The  same  thing 
recurs  in  the  case  of  Bilhah,  verse  25,  '  she  bare  these  unto 
Jacob:  all  the  souls  were  seven.'  Compare,  verses  15,  22.  No 
one  can  pretend  tliat  the  author  of  this  register  did  not  use  the 
term  understandingly  of  descendants  beyond  the  first  generation. 
In  like  manner,  according  to  Mattliew  i.  11,  Josias  begat  his 
grandson  Jeclionias,  and  verse  8,  Joram  begat  iiis  great-great- 
grandson  Ozias.  And  in  Genesis  x.  15-18,  Canaan,  the  grand- 
son of  Noah,  is  said  to  have  begotten  several  whole  nations,  the 
Jebusite,  the  Amorite,  the  Girgasite,  the  Hivite,  etc..  etc.  Noth- 
ing can  be  plainer,  therefore,  than  that  in  the  usage  of  the  Bible, 
'  to  bear  '  and  '  to  beget '  are  used  in  a  wide  sense  to  indicate 
descent,  without  restricting  this  to  the  immediate  offspring."  ^ 

The  extreme  uncertainty  attending  all  attempts  to  determine  the 
chronology  of  the  Bible  is  sufficiently  evinced  by  the  fact  that  one 
hundred  and  eighty  different  calculations  have  been  made  by  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  authors,  of  the  length  of  the  period  between 
Adam  and  Christ.  The  longest  of  these  make  it  six  thousand 
nine  hundred  and  eighty-four,  and  the  shortest  three  thousand  four 
hundred  and  eighty-three  years.  Under  these  circumstances  it  is 
very  clear  that  the  friends  of  the  Bible  have  no  occasion  for  uneasi- 
ness. If  the  facts  of  science  or  of  history  should  ultimately  make 
it  necessary  to  admit  that  eight  or  ten  thousand  years  have  elapsed 
since  the  creation  of  man,  there  is  nothing  in  the  Bible  in  the  way 
of  such  concession.  The  Scriptures  do  not  teach  us  how  long  men 
have  existed  on  the  earth.  Their  tables  of  genealogy  were  in- 
tended to  pi'ove  that  Christ  was  the  son  of  David  and  of  the  Seed 
of  Abraham,  and  not  how  many  years  had  elapsed  between  the 
creation  and  the  advent.^ 

1  The  Pentateuch  Vindicated  from  the  Aspersions  of  Bishop  Colenso,  by  William  Henry 
Green,  Professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  Princeton,  N.  J.     New  York,  1863,  p.  132. 

2  Herzog's  Encyklopadie,  article  "  Zeitrechnung,"  which  quotes  the  Benedictine  work 
VArt  de  verifier  les  Dates.    T.  i.,  pp.  xxvii.-xxxvi. 


CHAPTER  II. 

NATURE   OF  MAN. 

§  1.  Scripture  Doctrine. 

The  Sci'iptures  teach  that  God  formed  the  body  of  man  out  of 
the  dust  of  the  earth,  and  breathed  into  him  the  breath  of  hfe  and 
he  became  nTI  tt'C3,  a  living  soul.  According  to  this  account,  man 
consists  of  two  distinct  principles,  a  body  and  a  soul :  the  one  ma- 
terial, the  other  immaterial ;  the  one  corporeal,  the  other  spiritual. 
It  is  involved  in  this  statement,  first,  that  the  soul  of  man  is  a 
substance  ;  and,  secondly,  that  it  is  a  substance  distinct  from  the 
body.  So  that  in  the  constitution  of  man  two  distinct  substances 
are  included. 

The  idea  of  substance,  as  has  been  before  remarked,  is  one  of 
tlie  primary  truths  of  the  reason.  It  is  given  in  the  consciousness 
of  every  man,  and  is  therefore  a  part  of  the  universal  faith  of  men. 
We  are  conscious  of  our  thoughts,  feelings,  and  volitions.  We 
know  that  these  exercises  or  phenomena  are  constantly  changing, 
but  that  there  is  something  of  which  they  are  the  exercises  and 
manifestation.  That  something  is  the  self  which  remains  unchanged, 
which  is  the  same  identical  something,  yesterday,  to-day,  and  to- 
morrow. The  soul  is,  therefore,  not  a  mere  series  of  acts ;  nor  is  it 
a  form  of  the  life  of  God,  nor  is  it  a  mere  unsubstantial  force,  but  a 
real  subsistence.  Whatever  acts  is,  and  what  is  is  an  entity.  A 
nonentity  is  nothing,  and  nothing  can  neither  have  power  nor  pro- 
duce effects.  The  soul  of  man,  therefore,  is  an  essence  or  entity 
or  substance,  the  abiding  subject  of  its  varying  states  and  exercises. 
The  second  point  just  mentioned  is  no  less  plain.  As  we  can  know 
nothing  of  substance  but  from  its  phenomena,  and  as  we  are  forced 
by  a  law  of  our  nature  to  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  substance  of 
which  the  phenomena  are  the  manifestation,  so  by  an  equally  strin- 
gent necessity  we  are  forced  to  believe  that  where  the  phenomena 
are  not  only  different,  but  incompatible,  there  the  substances  are 
also  different.  As,  therefoi-e,  the  phenomena  or  properties  of 
matter  are  essentially  different  from  those  of  mind,  we  are  forced 
to  conclude  that  matter  and  mind  are  two  distinct  substances  ;  that 


§  1.]  SCRIPTURE  DOCTRINE.  43 

the  soul  is  not  material  nor  the  body  spiritual.  "  To  identify  mat- 
ter with  mind,"  says  Cousin,  in  a  passage  before  quoted,  "  or  mind 
with  matter :  it  is  necessary  to  pretend  that  sensation,  thought, 
volition,  are  reducible,  in  the  last  analysis,  to  solidity,  extension, 
figure,  divisibihty,  etc. ;  or  that  solidity,  extension,  figure,  etc.,  are 
reducible  to  sensation,  thought,  will."  ^  It  may  be  said,  therefore, 
despite  of  materialists  and  idealists,  that  it  is  intuitively  certain 
that  matter  and  mind  are  two  distinct  substances ;  and  such  has 
been  the  faith  of  the  great  body  of  mankind.  This  view  of  the 
nature  of  man  which  is  presented  in  the  original  account  of  his 
creation,  is  sustained  by  the  constant  representations  of  the  Bible. 

Truths  on  this  Subject  assumed  in  Scripture. 

The  Scriptures  do  not  formally  teach  any  system  of  psychol- 
ogy, but  there  are  certain  truths  relating  both  to  our  physical 
and  mental  constitution,  which  they  constantly  assume.  They 
assume,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  soul  is  a  substance  ;  tliat  it  is  a 
substance  distinct  from  the  body  ;  and  that  there  are  two,  and  not 
more  than  two,  essential  elements  in  the  constitution  of  man.  Tliis 
is  evident,  (1.)  From  the  distinction  everywhere  made  between 
soul  and  body.  Thus,  in  the  original  account  of  the  creation  a 
clear  distinction  is  made  between  the  body  as  formed  from  the  dust 
of  the  earth,  and  the  soul  or  principle  of  life  which  was  breathed  into 
it  from  God.  And  in  Gen.  iii.  1,9,  it  is  said,  "  Dust  thou  art,  and 
unto  dust  shalt  thou  return."  As  it  was  only  the  body  that  Avas 
formed  out  of  the  dust,  it  is  only  the  body  that  is  to  return  to  dust. 
In  Eccles.  xii.  7,  it  is  said,  "  Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth 
as  it  was,  and  the  spirit  shall  return  unto  God  who  gave  it."  Is. 
X.  18,  "  Shall  consume  ....  both  soul  and  body."  Daniel  says 
(vii.  15),  "  I  Daniel  was  grieved  in  my  spirit  in  the  midst  of  my 
body."  Our  Lord  (Matt.  vi.  25)  commands  his  disciples  to  take 
no  thought  for  the  body;  and,  again  (Matt.  x.  28),  "Fear  not 
tliem  whicli  kill  the  body,  but  are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul :  but 
rather  fear  him  which  is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell." 
Sucli  is  the  constant  representation  of  the  Scriptures.  The  body 
and  soul  are  set  forth  as  distinct  substances,  and  the  two  together 
as  constituting  the  whole  man.  (2.)  There  is  a  second  class  of 
passages  equally  decisive  as  to  this  point.  It  consists  of  those  in 
which  the  body  is  represented  as  a  garment  which  is  to  be  laid 
aside  ;  a  tabernacle  or  house  in  which  the  soul  dwells,  which  it 
may  leave  and  return  to.     Paul,  on   a  certain   occasion,  did  not 

1  Elements' of  Psychology,  Henry's  trauslation,  N.  Y.  1856,  p.  370. 


44  PART  n.   Ch.  tl  — nature  of  man. 

know  whether  he  was  in  the  body  or  out  of  tlie  body.  Peter  says 
he  thought  it  meet  as  long  as  he  was  in  this  tabernacle  to  put  his 
brethren  in  remembrance  of  the  truth,  "  knowing,"  as  he  adds, 
''that  shortly  I  must  put  off  this  my  tabernacle."  Paul,  in  2  Cor. 
V.  1,  says,  "  If  our  earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle  were  dissolved 
we  have  a  building  of  God."  In  the  same  connection,  he  speaks 
of  being  unclothed  and  clothed  upon  with  our  house  which  is  from 
heaven ;  and  of  being  absent  from  the  body  and  present  with  the 
Lord,  knowing  that  while  we  are  at  home  in  the  body  we  are 
absent  from  the  Lord.  To  the  Philippians  (i.  23,  24)  he  says,  "  I 
am  in  a  strait  betwixt  two,  having  a  desire  to  depart,  and  to  be 
witii  Christ ;  which  is  far  better ;  nevertheless,  to  abide  in  the 
flesh  is  more  needful  for  you."  (3.)  It  is  the  common  belief  of 
mankind,  the  clearly  revealed  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  and  part  of 
the  faith  of  the  Church  universal,  that  the  soul  can  and  does  exist 
and  act  after  death.  If  this  be  so,  then  the  body  and  soul  are  two 
distinct  substances.  The  former  may  be  disorganized,  reduced  to 
dust,  dispersed,  or  even  annihilated,  and  the  latter  retain  its  con- 
scious life  and  activity.  This  doctrine  was  taught  in  the  Old 
Testament,  where  the  dead  are  represented  as  dwelling  in  Sheol, 
whence  they  occasionally  reappeared,  as  Samuel  did  to  Saul.  Our 
Lord  says  that  as  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead  but  of  the  living, 
his  declaring  himself  to  be  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
proves  that  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  are  now  alive.  Moses  and 
Elijah  conversed  with  Christ  on  the  Mount.  To  the  dying  thief 
our  Lord  said,  "  To-day  shalt  thou  "  (that  in  which  his  personality 
resided)  "  be  with  me  in  Paradise."  Paul,  as  we  have  just  seen, 
desired  to  be  absent  from  the  body  and  present  with  the  Lord. 
He  knew  that  his  conscious  personal  existence  was  to  be  continued 
after  the  dissolution  of  his  body.  It  is  unnecessary  to  dwell  on 
this  point,  as  the  continued  existence  of  tiie  soul  in  full  conscious- 
ness and  activity  out  of  the  body  and  in  the  interval  between  death 
and  the  resurrection,  is  not  denied  by  any  Christian  Church.  But 
if  this  be  so  it  clearly  proves  that  the  soul  and  body  are  two  distinct 
substances,  so  that  the  former  can  exist  independently  of  the  latter. 

Relation  of  the  Soul  and  Body. 

Man,  then,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  is  a  created  spirit  in 
vital  union  with  a  material  organized  body.  The  relation  between 
these  two  constituents  of  our  nature  is  admitted  to  be  mysterious. 
That  is,  it  is  incomprehensible.  We  do  not  know  how  the  body 
acts  on  the  mind,  or  how  the  mind  acts  on  the  binly.      These  facts, 


§1.]  SCRIPTURE  DOCTRINE.  45 

however,  are  plain,  (1.)  That  the  relation  between  the  two  is  a 
vital  union,  in  such  a  sense  as  that  the  soul  is  the  source  of  life  to 
the  body.  When  the  soul  leaves  the  body  the  latter  ceases  to  live. 
It  loses  its  sensibility  and  activity,  and  becomes  at  once  subject  to 
the  chemical  laws  which  govern  unorganized  matter,  and  by  their 
operation  is  soon  reduced  to  dust,  undistinguishable  from  the  earth 
whence  it  was  originally  taken.  (2.)  It  is  a  fact  of  consciousness 
that  certain  states  of  the  body  produce  certain  corresponding  states 
of  the  mind.  The  mind  takes  cognizance  of,  or  is  conscious  of,  the 
impressions  made  by  external  objects  on  the  organs  of  sense  belong- 
ing to  the  body.  The  mind  sees,  the  mind  hears,  and  the  mind 
feels,  not  directly  or  immediately  (at  least  in  our  present  and  normal 
state),  but  through  or  by  means  of  the  appropriate  organs  of  the 
body.  It  is  also  a  matter  of  daily  experience  that  a  healthful  con- 
dition of  the  body  is  necessary  to  a  healthful  state  of  the  mind ; 
that  certain  diseases  or  disorders  of  the  one  produce  derangement 
in  the  operations  of  the  other.  Emotions  of  the  mind  affect  the 
body  ;  sliame  suffuses  the  cheek  ;  joy  causes  the  heart  to  beat  and 
the  eyes  to  shine.  A  blow  on  the  head  renders  the  mind  uncon- 
scious, i.  e.,  it  renders  the  brain  unfit  to  be  the  organ  of  its  activity  ; 
and  a  diseased  condition  of  the  brain  may  cause  irregular  action 
in  the  mind,  as  in  lunacy.  All  this  is  incomprehensible,  but  it  is 
undeniable.  (3.)  It  is  also  a  fact  of  consciousness  that,  while  cer- 
tain operations  of  the  body  are  independent  of  the  conscious  volun- 
tary action  of  the  mind,  as  the  processes  of  respiration,  digestion, 
secretion,  assimilation,  etc.,  there  are  certain  actions  dependent  on 
the  will.  We  can  will  to  move  ;  and  we  can  exert  a  greater  or  less 
degree  of  muscular  force.  It  is  better  to  admit  these  simple  facts 
of  consciousness  and  of  experience,  and  to  confess  that,  while  they 
prove  an  intimate  and  vital  union  between  the  mind  and  body,  they 
do  not  enable  us  to  comprehend  the  nature  of  that  union,  than  to 
have  recourse  to  arbitrary  and  fanciful  theories  which  deny  these 
facts,  because  we  cannot  explain  them.  This  is  done  by  the  advo- 
cates of  the  doctrine  of  occasional  causes,  which  denies  any  action 
of  the  mind  on  the  body  or  of  the  body  on  the  mind,  but  refers  all 
to  the  immediate  agency  of  God.  A  certain  state  of  the  mind  is 
the  occasion  on  which  God  produces  a  certain  act  of  the  body  ;  and 
a  certain  impression  made  on  the  body  is  the  occasion  on  which 
God  produces  a  certain  impression  on  the  mind.  Leibnitz's  doctrine 
of  a  preestablished  harmony  is  equally  unsatisfactory.  He  denied 
that  one  substance  could  act  on  another  of  a  different  kind ;  that 
matter  could  act  on  mind  or  mind  on  matter.     He  proposed    to 


46  PART  II.     Ch.   II.  — nature   OF  MAN. 

account  for  the  admitted  correspondence  between  the  varying  states 
of  the  one  and  those  of  tlie  other  on  the  assumption  of  a  prearrange- 
ment.  God  had  foreordained  that  the  mind  should  have  the  per- 
ception of  a  tree  whenever  the  tree  was  presented  to  the  eye,  and 
that  the  arm  should  move  whenever  the  mind  had  a  volition  to 
move.  But  he  denied  any  causal  relation  between  these  two  series 
of  events. 

Realistic  Dualism. 

The  Scriptural  doctrine  of  the  nature  of  man  as  a  created  spirit 
in  vital  union  with  an  organized  body,  consisting,  therefore,  of  two, 
and  only  two,  distinct  elements  or  substances,  matter  and  mind,  is 
one  of  great  importance.  It  is  intimately  connected  with  some  of 
the  most  important  doctrines  of  the  Bible  ;  with  the  constitution  of 
the  person  of  Christ,  and  consequently  with  the  nature  of  his  re- 
deeming work  and  of  his  relation  to  the  children  of  men;  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  fall,  original  sin,  and  of  regeneration  ;  and  with  the 
doctrines  of  a  future  state  and  of  the  resurrection.  It  is  because 
of  this  connection,  and  not  because  of  its  interest  as  a  question 
in  psychology,  that  the  true  idea  of  man  demands  the  careful 
investiiTfvtion  of  the  theologian. 

The  doctrine  above  stated,  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  and 
of  the  Church,  is  properly  designated  as  realistic  dualism.  That 
is,  it  asserts  the  existence  of  two  distinct  res,  entities,  or  substances  ; 
the  one  extended,  tangible,  and  divisible,  the  object  of  the  senses  ;• 
the  other  unextended  and  indivisible,  the  thinking,  feeling,  and 
willing  subject  in  man.  This  doctrine  stands  opposed  to  materialism 
and  idealism,  which  although  antagonistic  systems  in  other  respects, 
agree  in  denying  any  dualism  of  substance.  The  one  makes  the 
mind  a  function  of  the  body ;  the  other  makes  the  body  a  form  of 
the  mind.  But,  according  to  the  Scriptures  and  all  sound  philoso- 
phy, neither  is  the  body,  as  Delitzsch  ^  says,  a  precipitate  of  tiie 
mind,  nor  is  the  mind  a  sublimate  of  matter. 

The  Scriptural  docti'ine  of  man  is  of  course  opposed  to  the  old 
heathen  doctrine  which  represents  him  as  the  form  in  which  nature, 
der  Naturgeist,  the  anima  mundi,  comes  to  self-consciousness  ;  and 
also  to  the  wider  pantheistic  doctrine  according  to  which  men  are 
the  highest  manifestations  of  the  one  universal  principle  of  being 
and  life  ;  and  to  the  doctrine  which  represents  man  as  the  union 
of  the  impersonal,  universal  reason  or  Aoyo?,  with  a  living  corporeal 
organization.  According  to  this  last  mentioned  view,  man  con- 
sists of  the  body  (a-Qifia),  soul  (iA"X^)»  ^"^  Xoyos,  or  the  impersonal 

1  Biblische  Psycholoffie,  p.  64. 


§2.]  TRICHOTOMY.  47 

reason.     This   is  very  nearly  the  Apollinarian  doctrine  as  to  the 
constitution  of  Christ's  person,  applied  to  all  mankind. 

§  2.   Trichotomy. 

It  is  of  more  consequence  to  remark  that  the  Scriptural  doctrine 
is  opposed  to  Trichotomy,  or  the  doctrine  that  man  consists  of 
three  distinct  substances,  body,  soul,  and  spirit ;  o-Ji/Aa,  i/^^x'?-  and 
TTi'cvfjia ;  corpus,  anima,  and  animus.  This  view  of  the  nature  of 
man  is  of  tlie  more  importance  to  the  theologian  because  it  has  not 
only  been  held  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  in  the  Church,  but  also 
because  it  has  greatly  influenced  the  form  in  which  other  doctrines 
have  been  presented  ;  and  because  it  has  some  semblance  of  sup- 
port from  the  Scriptures  tliemselves.  The  doctrine  has  been  held 
in  different  forms.  The  simplest,  the  most  intelligible,  and  the  one 
most  commonly  adopted  is,  that  the  body  is  the  material  part  of 
our  constitution  ;  the  soul,  or  i/'^x^;,  is  the  principle  of  animal  life  ; 
and  the  mind,  or  Trviv/xa,  the  principle  of  our  rational  and  immortal 
life.  When  a  plant  dies  its  material  organization  is  dissolved  and 
the  principle  of  vegetable  life  which  it  contained  disappears.  When 
a  brute  dies  its  body  returns  to  dust,  and  the  i/'ux^,  or  principle  of  an- 
imal life  by  which  it  was  animated,  passes  away.  When  a  man 
dies  his  body  returns  to  the  earth,  his  t/'^xv  ceases  to  exist,  his 
Trvevjxa  alone  remains  until  reunited  with  the  body  at  the  resurrec- 
tion. To  the  TTi/eu/^a,  which  is  peculiar  to  man,  belong  reason,  will, 
and  conscience.  To  the  i/'vx»?  which  we  have  in  common  with  the 
brutes,  belong  understanding,  feeling,  and  sensibility,  or,  the  power 
of  sense-perceptions.  To  the  aw/j-a  belongs  what  is  purely  material.^ 
According  to  another  view  of  the  subject,  the  soul  is  neither  the 
body  nor  the  mind ;  nor  is  it  a  distinct  subsistence,  but  it  is  the 
resultant  of  the  union  of  the  irvevfj^a  and  croifxa?  Or  accordino-  to  De- 
litzsch,^  there  is  a  dualism  of  being  in  man,  but  a  trichotomy  of  sub- 
stance. He  distinguishes  between  being  and  substance,  and  main- 
tains, (1.)  that  spirit  and  soul  (Tri/eC/xa  and  «/'uxr/)  are  not  verschiedene 
Wesen,  but  that  they  are  verschiedene  Substanzen.  He  says  that 
the  rt;jn  tiTD,  mentioned  in  the  history  of  the  creation,  is  not  the 
coinpositum  resulting  from  the  union  of  the  spirit  and  body,  so  that 
the  two  constituted  man.  But  it  is  a  tertium  quid,  a  third  substance 
which  belongs  to  the  constitution  of  his  nature.  (2.)  But  secondly, 
this  third  principle  does  not  pertain  to  the  body  ;  it  is  not  the  higher 

1  Aucjust  Hahn,  Lchrbuch  c/es  christlicheti  Glaubens,  p.  324. 

2  Giischel  in  Herzojj's  Enn/Mo/mlie,  Article  "  Seele." 
8  BiblUche  /\'>ychol,igie,  §  4,  p.  128. 


48  PART  II.     CH.n.  — NATURE   OF  MAN. 

attributes  or  functions  of  the  body,  but  it  pertains  to  the  spirit  and 
is  produced  by  it.  It  sustains  the  same  relation  to  it  tliat  breatii 
does  to  the  body,  or  effulgence  does  to  light.  He  says  that  the  i/'^x'? 
(soul)  is  the  a-n-avyaafjia  of  the  irvtv^a  and  the  bond  of  its  union  with 

the  body. 

Trichotomy  anti-Seriptural. 

In  opposition  to  all  the  forms  of  trichotomy,  or  the  docti-ine  of  a 
threefold  substance  in  the  constitution  of  man,  it  may  be  remarked, 
(1.)  That  it  is  opposed  to  the  account  of  the  creation  of  man  as 
given  in  Gen.  ii.  7.  According  to  that  account  God  formed  man 
out  of  the  dust  of  the  earth  and  breathed  into  him  the  breath  of 
life,  and  he  became  •n'^n  It\^3  ^.  e.,  a  being  (n^n  tt7?:3  ia—itt'S)  i" 
whom  is  a  living  soul.  There  is  in  this  account  no  intimation  of 
anything  more  than  the  material  body  formed  of  the  earth  and  the 
living  principle  derived  from  God.  (2.)  This  doctrine  (trichotomy) 
is  opposed  to  the  uniform  usage  of  Scripture.  So  far  from  the 
tt7D3,  ^^X'h  cmima,  or  soul,  being  distinguished  from  the  n^n, 
TTvevfxa,  animus,  or  mind  as  either  originally  different  or  as  derived 
from  it,  these  words  all  designate  one  and  the  same  thing.  They 
are  constantly  interchanged.  The  one  is  substituted  for  the  other, 
and  all  that  is,  or  can  be  predicated  of  the  one,  is  predicated  of  the 
other.  The  Hebrew  ttJCD,  and  the  Greek  '/'^x^,  mean  breath,  life, 
the  living  principle  ;  that  in  which  life  and  the  whole  life  of  the 
subject  spoken  of  resides.  The  same  is  true  of  n^~)  and  Trvev/xa, 
they  also-  mean  breath,  life,  and  living  principle.  The  Scriptures 
therefore  speak  of  the  ttf23  or  ^^xn  not  only  as  that  which  lives  or 
is- the  principle  of  life  to  the  body,  but  as  that  which  thinks  and 
feels,  which  may  be  saved  or  lost,  which  survives  the  body  and  is 
immortal.  The  soul  is  the  man  himself,  that  in  which  his  identity 
and  personality  I'eside.  It  is  the  Ego.  Higher  than  the  soul  there 
is  nothing  in  man.  Therefore  it  is  so  often  used  as  a  synonym  for 
self.  Every  soul  is  every  man  ;  my  soul  is  I  ;  his  soul  is  he. 
What  shall  a  man  give  in  exchange  for  his  soul.  It  is  the  soul 
that  sins  (Lev.  iv.  2)  ;  it  is  the  soul  that  loves  God.  We  are 
commanded  to  love  God,  «v  oXy  ry  i^vxy-  Hope  is  said  to  be  the 
anchor  of  the  soid,  and  the  word  of  God  is  able  to  save  the  soul. 
The  end  of  our  faith  is  said  to  be  (1  Peter  i.  9),  the  salvation  of 
our  souls  ;  and  John  (Rev.  vi.  9  ;  xx.  4),  saw  in  heaven  the  souls 
of  them  that  were  slain  for  the  word  of  God.  From  all  this  it  is 
evident  that  the  word  i/'^x^/,  or  soul,  does  not  designate  the  mere 
animal  part  of  our  nature,  and  is  not  a  substance  different  from  the 
7rv£v/xa,  or  spirit.     (3.)  A  third  remark  on  this  subject  is  that  all 


§2.] 


TRICHOTOMY.  49 


the  words  above  mentioned,  w^:},  mi,  and  ni2tr3  in   Hebrew,   if/vxn 
and  TrreC/xa  in  Greek,  and  soul  and  spirit  in  English,  are  used  in  the 
Scriptures  indiscriminately  of  men  and  of  irrational  animals.     If  the 
Bible  ascribed  only  a    (/"^XV  to  brutes,  and  both  ^vxv  and  mev/xa  to 
man,  there  would  be  some  ground  for  assuming  that  the   two  are 
essentially  distinct.     But  such  is  not  the  case.    The  living  principle 
in  the  brute  is  called   both    trrf^p   and   mi,  ^^XV  and  -n-vevfia.     That 
principle  in  the  brute  creation  is  irrational  and  mortal  ;  in  man  it  is 
rational  and  immortal.    "  Who  knoweth  the  spirit  of  man  that  goeth 
upward,  and  the  spirit  of  tlie  beast  that  goeth   downward  to  the 
earth  ?  "  Eccles.  iii.  21.     The  soul  of  the  brute  is  the  immaterial 
principle  which  constitutes  its  life,  and  which  is  endowed  with  sen- 
sibility, and  that  measure  of  intelligence  which  experience  shows 
the  lower  animals  to  possess.     The  soul  in  man  is  a  created   spirit 
of  a  higher  order,  wliicii  has  not  only  the  attributes  of  sensibility, 
memory,  and  instinct,  but  also  the  higher  powers  which  pertain  to 
our  intellectual,  moral,  and  religious  life.    As  in  the  brutes  it  is  not 
one  substance  that  feels  and  another  that  remembers  ;  so  it  is  not 
one  substance  in  man  that  is  the  subject  of  sensations,  and  another 
substance  which  has  intuitions  of  necessary  truths,  and  which  is 
endowed  with   conscience  and  with   the  knowledge  of  God.     Phi- 
losophers speak  of  world-consciousness,  or  the  immediate  cognizance 
which  we  have  of  what  is  without  us ;  of  self-consciousness,  or  the 
knowledge  of  what  is  within  us  ;  and  of  God-consciousness,  or  our 
knowledge  and  sense  of  God.     These  all  belong  to  one  and  the 
same  immaterial,  rational  substance.     (4.)  It  is  fair   to  appeal  to 
the  testimony  of  consciousness  on  this  subject.     We  are  conscious 
of  our  bodies  and  we  are  conscious  of  our  souls,  i.  e.,  of  the  exer- 
cises and  states  of  each  ;  but  no  man  is  conscious  of  the  '/'"x^/  as  dis- 
tinct from  tlie  -irvevixa,  of  the  soul  as  different  from  the  spirit.     In 
other  words  consciousness  reveals  the  existence  of  two  substances 
in  the  constitution  of  our  nature  ;  but  it  does  not  reveal  the  exist- 
ence of  three  substances,  and  therefore  the  existence  of  more  than 
two  cannot  rationally  be  assumed. 

Doubtful  Passages  Explained. 

(5.)  The  passages  of  Scriptures  which  are  cited  as  favouring  the 
opposite  doctrine  may  all  be  explained  in  consistency  with  the  cur- 
rent representations  of  Scripture  on  the  subject.  When  Paul  says 
to  the  Thessalonians,  "  I  pray  God  your  whole  spirit,  and  soul,  and 
body,  be  preserved  blameless  unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  "  (1  Thessalonians  v.   23),  he   only  uses  a  periphrasis  for 

VOL.   II.  4 


50  PART   II.     Cii.   II.  — NATURE   OF  MAN. 

the  wliole  man.  As  when  in  Luke  i.  46,  47,  the  virgin  says,  "  Mv 
soul  doth  magnify  the  Lord,  and  my  spirit  hatli  rejoiced  in  God 
my  Saviour,"  soul  and  spirit  in  this  passage  do  not  mean  different 
tilings.  And  when  we  are  commanded  "  Thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  with  all  thy 
strength,  and  with  all  thy  mind  "  (Luke  x.  27),  we  have  not  an 
enumeration  of  so  many  distinct  substances.  Nor  do  we  distinguish 
between  the  mind  and  heart  as  separate  entities  when  we  pray  that 
both  may  be  enlightened  and  sanctified  ;  we  mean  simply  the  soul  in 
all  its  aspects  or  faculties.  Again,  when  in  Heb.  iv.  12,  the  Apostle 
says  that  the  word  of  God  pierces  so  as  to  penetrate  soul  and  spirit, 
and  the  joints  and  marrow,  he  does  not  assume  that  soul  and  spirit 
are  different  substances.  The  joints  and  marrow  are  not  different 
substances.  They  are  both  material ;  they  are  different  forms  of  the 
same  substance ;  and  so  soul  and  spirit  are  one  and  the  same  substance 
under  different  aspects  or  relations.  We  can  say  that  the  word  of 
God  reaches  not  only  to  the  feelings,  but  also  to  the  conscience, 
without  assuming  that  the  heart  and  conscience  are  distinct  entities. 
■  Much  less  is  any  such  distinction  implied  in  Phil.  i.  27,  "  Stand 
fast  in  one  spirit  Qv  ivl  Trrcu/zaTt),  with  one  mind  (/^ta  •/'vxj}),"  There 
is  more  difficulty  in  explaining  1  Cor.  xv.  44.  The  Apostle  there 
distinguishes  between  the  arwfjia  if/v)(^LK6v  and  the  a-wfjLa  iruevfjiaTiKov  ;  the 
former  is  that  in  which  the  i/'wx'?  is  the  animating  principle  ;  and  the 
latter  that  in  which  the  irvev/xa  is  the  principle  of  life.  The  one 
we  have  here,  the  other  we  are  to  have  hereafter.  This  seems  to 
imply  that  the  i/'ux^;  exists  in  "this  life,  but  is  not  to  exist  hereafter, 
and  therefore  that  the  two  are  separable  and  distinct.  In  this  ex- 
planation we  might  acquiesce  if  it  did  not  contradict  the  general 
representations  of  the  Scriptures.  We  are  constrained,  therefore, 
to  seek  another  explanation  which  will  harmonize  with  other  por- 
tions of  the  word  of  God.  The  general  meaning  of  the  Apostle  is 
plain.  We  have  now  gross,  perishable,  and  dishonorable,  or  un- 
sightly bodies.  Hereafter  we  are  to  have  glorious  bodies,  adapted 
to  a  higher  state  of  existence.  The  only  question  is,  why  does  he 
call  the  one  psychical,  and  the  other  pneumatic  ?  Because  the 
word  ^vxy,  although  often  used  for  the  soul  as  rational  and  im- 
mortal, is  also  used  for  the  lower  form  of  life  which  belongs  to  irra- 
tional animals.  Our  future  bodies  are  not  to  be  adapted  to  those 
principles  of  our  nature  which  we  have  in  common  with  the  brutes, 
but  to  those  which  are  peculiar  to  us  as  men,  created  in  the  image 
of  God.  The  same  individual  human  soul  has  certain  suscepti- 
bilities   and  powers  which  adapt  it  to   the  present  state  of  exist- 


§3.]  REALISM.  61 

ence,  and  to  the  earthly  house  in  which  it  now  dwells.  It  has 
animal  appetites  and  necessities.  It  can  hunger  and  thirst.  It 
needs  sleep  and  rest.  But  the  same  soul  has  higher  powers.  The 
earthly  body  is  suited  to  its  earthly  state  ;  the  heavenly  body  to 
its  heavenly  state.  There  are  not  two  substances  i^^^x^  ^"d  TrveS/xa, 
there  is  but  one  and  the  same  substance  with  different  susceptibili- 
ties and  powers.  In  this  same  connection  Paul  says,  Flesh  and 
blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Yet  our  bodies  are 
to  inherit  that  kingdom,  and  our  bodies  are  flesh  and  blood.  The 
same  material  substance  now  constituted  as  flesh  and  blood  is  to  be 
so  changed  as  to  be  like  Christ's  glorious  body.  As  this  representa- 
tion does  not  prove  a  substantial  difference  between  the  body  which 
now  is  and  that  which  is  to  be  hereafter,  so  neither  does  what  the 
Apostle  says  of  the  crw/Aa  \pv)(LK6v  and  the  o-tU/xa  Tri/eu/xariKoj/  prove  that 
the  ^^X"!  ^"<^  TTvevfjia  are  distinct  substances. 

This  doctrine  of  a  threefold  constitution  of  man  being  adopted 
by  Plato,  was  introduced  partially  into  the  early  Church,  but  soon 
came  to  be  regarded  as  dangerous,  if  not  heretical.  Its  being  held 
by  the  Gnostics  that  the  TrvevfjLa  in  man  was  a  part  of  the  divine 
essence,  and  incapable  of  sin  ;  and  by  the  Apollinarlans  that 
Christ  had  only  a  human  awy-a  and  ^vxy^  but  not  a  human  nvivfia, 
the  Church  rejected  the  doctrine  that  the  i/'^X'?  ^"^  TrveC/xa  were 
distinct  substances,  since  upon  it  those  heresies  were  founded.  In 
later  times  tlie  Semi-Pelagians  taught  that  the  soul  and  body,  but 
not  the  spirit  in  man  were  the  subjects  of  original  sin.  All  Prot- 
estants, Lutheran  and  Reformed,  were,  therefore,  the  more  zealous 
in  maintaining  that  the  soul  and  spirit,  ^vxn  and  7rveDyu,a,  are  one  and 
the  same  substance  and  essence.  And  this,  as  before  remarked, 
has  been  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Church.^ 

§  3.  Realism. 
Its  Greneral  Character. 
There  is  still  another  view  of  the  nature  of  man  which,  from  its 
extensive  and  long-continued  influence,  demands  consideration. 
According  to  this  view,  man  is  defined  to  be,  The  manifestation  of 
the  general  principle  of  humanity  in  union  with  a  given  corporeal 
organization.  This  view  has  been  held  in  various  forms  wiiich 
cannot  here  be  severally  discussed.  It  is  only  the  theory  in  its  more 
general  features,  or  in  the  form  in  which  it  has  been  commonly 
presented,   that  our  limits  permit  us  to  examine.     It  necessarily 

1  See  G.  L.  Hahn,  Theohgie  des  N.  T.  Olshausen,  De  Trichotomia  Naturm  Humnnce,  a 
Novi  Ttstnmenti  Scriptoribas  recepta.  Ackermatin,  Sludlen  und  Kriliken,  1839,  p.  882. 
J.  T.  Beck,  Umriss  d.  bMischen  Scdenlehre,  1843. 


52  PART  n.   Ch.  II.— nature  of  man. 

assumes  tliat  humanity,  human  nature  as  a  general  principle  or  a 
form  of  life,  exists  antecedently  (either  chronologically  or  logically) 
to  individual  men.  "  In  the  order  of  nature,"  says  Dr.  Shedd, 
"  mankind  exists  before  the  generations  of  mankind ;  the  nature  is 
prior  to  the  individuals  produced  out  of  it."  ^  It  exists,  also,  inde- 
pendently and  outside  of  them.  As  magnetism  is  a  force  in  nature 
existing  antecedently,  independently,  and  outside  of  any  and  all 
individual  magnets  ;  and  as  electricity  exists  independently  of  the 
Leyden  jars  in  which  it  may  be  collected  or  through  which  it  is 
manifested  at  present;  as  galvanism  exists  independently  of  any 
and  all  galvanic  batteries ;  so  humanity  exists  antecedently  to  indi- 
vidual men  and  independently  of  them.  As  an  individual  magnet 
is  a  given  piece  of  soft  iron  in  which  the  magnetic  force  is  present 
and  active,  and  as  a  Leyden  jar  is  simply  a  coated  jar  in  which 
electricity  is  present,  so  an  individual  man  is  a  given  corporeal 
organization  in  which  humanity  as  a  general  life  or  force  is  present. 
To  the  question  what  is  human  nature,  or  humanity  generically 
considered,  there  are  different  answers  given.  It  is  said  to  be  a 
res^  an  essence,  a  substance,  a  real  objective  existence.  It  is  some- 
thing which  exists  in  time  and  space.  This  is  the  common  mode 
of  statement.  The  controversy  between  realists  and  nominalists, 
in  its  original  and  genuine  form,  turned  upon  this  point.  The 
question  which  for  ages  occupied  to  so  great  an  extent  the  attention 
of  all  philosophers,  was,  What  are  universals  ?  What  are  genera 
and  species  ?  What  are  general  terms  ?  Are  they  mere  words  ? 
Are  they  thoughts  or  conceptions  existing  ni  tne  mind  ?  Are  the 
things  expressed  by  general  terms  real  objective  existences?  Do 
individuals  only  exist ;  so  that  species  and  genus  are  only  classes  of 
individuals  of  the  same  kind  ;  or  are  mdividuals  only  the  revelations 
or  individualizations  of  a  general  substance  which  is  the  species  or 
genus  ?  According  to  the  early  and  genuine  realists,  and  accord- 
ing to  the  modern  speculative  philosophers,  tlie  species  or  genus  is 
first,  independent  of  and  external  to  the  individual.  The  individual 
is  only  "  a  subsequent  modus  existendi ;  the  first  and  antecedent 
mode  [in  the  case  of  man]  being  the  generic  humanity  of  which 
this  subsequent  serial  mode  is  only  another  aspect  or  manifestation."^ 
Precisely,  as  just  stated,  as  magnetism  is  antecedent  to  the  mag- 
net. The  magnet  is  only  an  individual  piece  of  iron  in  and  through 
which  generic  magnetism  is  manifested.  Thus  the  realist  says, 
"Etsi  i-ationalitas  non  esset  in  aliquo,  tamen  in  natura  remaneret."® 

1  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  vol.  ii.  p.  77. 

2  Sliedd's  Kssays.  Boston,  1867,  p.  259,  note,  and  his  History  of  Christi 
ii.  p.  117. 

8  Cousin,  FragmenU  Phihsophiques,  Paris,  1840,  p.  167. 


§  3.]  REALISM.  6S 

Cousin  quotes  the  complaint  of  Anselm  against  Roscelin  and  other 
nominalists,  "  de  ne  pas  comprendre  comment  plusieurs  hommes 
ne  sont  qu'un  seul  et  meme  homme,  —  nondum  intelliget  quomodo 
plures  homines  in  specie  sint  unus  homo."^  The  doctrine  of  his 
"  Monologium  "  and  "  Proslogium  "  and  "  Dialogus  de  veritate," 
Cousin  says,  is  "  que  non-seulement  il  j  a  des  individus  humains, 
mais  qu'il  y  a  en  autre  le  genre  humain,  I'humanite,  qui  est  une, 
comme  il  admettait  qu'il  y  a  un  temps  absolu  que  les  durees  partic- 
ulidres  manifestent  sans  le  constituer,  une  vdrite  une  et  subsistante 
par  elle-meme,  un  type  absolu  du  bien,  que  tons  les  biens  particu- 
liers  supposent  et  r^fldchissent  plus  ou  moins  imparfaitement,"'' 
He  quotes  Abelard  as  stating  the  doctrine  which  he  opposed,  in 
the  following  words :  "  Homo  quaedam  species  est,  res  una  essen- 
tialiter,  cui  adveniunt  formse  qunedam  et  efficiunt  Socratem  :  illam 
eamdem  essentialiter  eodem  modo  informant  form*  facientes  Plato- 
nem  et  castera  individua  hominis  ;  nee  aliquid  est  in  Socrate,  prjeter 
illas  formas  informantes  illam  materiam  ad  faciendum  Socratem, 
quin  illud  idem  eodem  tempore  in  Platone  informatum  sit  formis 
Platonis.  Et  hoc  intelligunt  de  singulis  speciebus  ad  individua  et 
de  generibus  ad  species."  ^  According  to  one  theory,  "  les  individus 
seuls  existent  et  constituent  I'essence  des  choses  ;  "  according  to 
the  other,  "  I'essence  des  individus  est  dans  le  genre  auquel  ils  se 
rapportent ;  en  tant  qu'  individus  ils  ne  sont  que  des  accidents."* 
All  this  is  sufficiently  plain.  That  which  constitutes  the  species  or 
genus  is  a  real  objective  existence,  a  substance  one  and  the  same 
numerically  as  well  as  specifically.  This  one  general  substance 
exists  in  every  individual  belonging  to  the  species,  and  constitutes 
their  essence.  That  which  is  peculiar  to  the  individual,  and  which 
distinguishes  it  from  other  individuals  of  the  same  species,  is  purely 
accidental.  This  one  sabstance  of  humanity,  which  is  revealed  or 
manifested  in  all  men,  and  which  constitutes  them  men,  "possesses 
all  the  attributes  of  the  human  individual ;  for  the  individual  is  only 
a  portion  and  specimen  of  the  nature.  Considered  as  an  essence, 
human  nature  is  an  intelligent,  rational,  and  voluntary  essence ; 
and  accordingly  its  agency  in  Adam  partakes  of  the  corresponding 
qualities."^  "Agency,"  however,  supposes  "an  agent ;  and  since 
original  sin  is  not  the  product  of  the  individual  agent,  because  it 
appears  at  birth,  it  must  be  referred  to  the  generic  agent,  — 
i.  e.,  to  the  human  nature  in  distinction  from  the  human  perso7i  or 
individual."  ^ 

I  Cousin's  Fragments  Philosophiques,  Paris,  1840,  p.  146.  2  Jhidem. 

3  Ibid.  p.  167.  4  jbid.  p.  171, 

*  Shedd,  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  vol.  ii.  p.  78.  «  Jbid.  p.  80. 


54  PART  n.   Ch.  n.— nature  of  man. 

Generic  Humanity. 

AVliat  God  created,  therefore,  was  not  an  individual  man,  but 
the  species  Jiomo^  or  generic  humanity,  —  an  intelligent,  rational, 
and  voluntar}^  essence  ;  individual  men  ai'e  the  manifestations  of 
this  substance  numerically  and  specifically  one  and  the  same,  in 
connection  with  their  several  corporeal  organizations.  Their  souls 
are  not  intlividual  essences,  but  one  common  essence  revealed  and 
acting  in  many  separate  organisms. 

This  answer  to  the  question  proposed  above,  What  is  human 
nature  generically  considered,  which  makes  it  an  essence  or 
substance  common  to  all  the  individuals  of  the  race,  is  the  most 
common  and  the  most  intelligible.  Scientific  men  adopt  a  some- 
what different  phraseology.  Instead  of  substances,  they  speak  of 
forces.  Nature  is  defined  to  be  the  sum  of  the  forces  operating  in 
the  external  world.  Oxygen  is  a  force  ;  magnetism,  electricity, 
etc.,  are  forces.  "  A  species  is  ...  .  based  on  a  specific  amount 
or  condition  of  concentred  force,  defined  in  the  act  or  law  of  crea- 
tion." ^  Humanity,  or  human  nature,  is  the  sum  of  the  forces 
which  constitute  man  what  he  is.  The  unity  of  the  race  consists 
in  the  fact  that  these  forces  are  numerically  as  well  as  specifically 
the  same  in  all  the  individuals  of  which  it  is  composed. 

The  German  theologians,  paiticularly  those  of  the  .school  of 
Schleiermacher,  use  the  terms  life,  law,  and  organic  law.  Human 
nature  is  a  generic  life,  i.  e.,  a  form  of  life  manifested  in  a  multi- 
tude of  individuals  of  the  same  kind.  In  the  individual  it  is  not 
distinct  or  different  from  what  it  is  in  the  genus.  It  is  the  same 
organic  law.  A  single  oak  may  produce  ten  thousand  other  oaks  ; 
but  the  whole  forest  is  as  much  an  inward  organic  unity  as  any 
single  tree. 

These  may  be  convenient  formulas  to  prevent  the  necessity  of 
circumlocutions,  and  to  express  a  class  of  facts  ;  but  they  do  not 
convey  any  definite  idea  beyond  the  facts  themselves.  To  say  that 
a  whole  forest  of  oaks  have  the  same  generic  life,  that  they  are  as 
truly  one  as  any  individual  tree  is  one,  means  simply  that  the 
nature  is  tiie  same  in  all,  and  that  all  have  been  derived  from  a 
common  source.  And  to  say  that  mankind  are  a  unit  because  the}' 
have  the  same  generic  life,  and  are  all  descended  from  a  common 
parent,  either  means  nothing  more  than  that  all  men  are  of  the 
same  species,  i.  e.,  that  humanity  is  specifically  the  same  in  all 
mankind  ;  or  it  means  all  that  is  intended  by  those  who  teach  that 

1  Professor  James  D.  Dana,  Bibliutheca  Sacra,  1857,  p.  861. 


§3.]  REALISM.  •  55 

genera  and  species  are  substances  of  whicli  the  individual  is  the 
mere  modus  existendi.  As  agency  implies  an  agent,  so  force, 
which  is  the  manifestation  of  power,  supposes  something,  a  subject 
or  substance  in  which  that  power  resides.  Nothing,  a  nonentity, 
can  have  no  power  and  manifest  no  force.  Force,  of  necessity, 
supposes  a  substance  of  whicli  it  is  the  manifestation.  If,  therefore, 
the  forces  are  numerically  the  same,  the  substance  must  be  numer- 
ically the  same.  And,  consequently,  if  humanity  be  a  given  amount 
and  kind  of  concentred  force,  numerically  and  not  merely  specifically 
the  same  in  all  men,  then  are  men  o/^oowo-iot,  partakers  of  one  and  the 
same  identical  essence.  The  same  remarks  apply  to  the  term  life. 
Life  is  a  predicable,  not  an  essence.  It  supposes  a  subject  of 
which  it  is  predicable.  There  can  be  no  life  unless  something 
lives.  It  is  not  a  thing  by  itself.  If,  therefore,  the  generic  life  of 
man  means  anything  more  than  the  same  kind  of  life,  it  must  mean 
that  that  which  lives  in  all  men  is  identically  the  same  numerical 
substance. 

Objections  to  Realism. 

According  to  the  common  doctrine,  the  soul  of  every  man  is 
an  individual  subsistence,  of  the  same  kind  but  not  of  the  same 
numerical  substance  as  the  souls  of  his  fellow-men,  so  that  men 
are  6/aoi-,  but  not  ofx-oova-ioi.  In  support  of  this  view  and  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  doctrine  that  "  all  men  are  one  man,"  or,  that  human 
nature  is  numerically  one  and  the  same  essence  of  which  individual 
men  are  the  modes  of  manifestation,  it  may  be  remarked,  — 

1.  That  the  latter  doctrine  is  a  mere  philosophical  hypothesis.  It 
is  a  simple  assumption  founded  on  what  is  possible.  It  is  possible 
that  the  doctrine  in  question  may  be  true.  So  in  itself  it  is  possible 
that  there  should  be  an  anima  mundi,  a  principle  of  life  immanent  in 
the  world,  of  which  all  living  organisms  are  the  different  manifesta- 
tions ;  so  that  all  vegetables,  all  animals,  and  man  himself,  are  but 
different  forms  of  one  and  the  same  numerical  livins:  substance  : 
just  as  the  multitudinous  waves  of  the  sea  in  all  their  infinite 
diversity  of  size,  shape,  and  hue,  are  but  the  heavings  of  one  and 
the  same  vast  ocean.  In  like  manner  it  is  possible  that  all  the 
forms  of  life  should  be  only  the  various  manifestations  of  the  life  of 
God.  This  is  not  only  possible,  but  it  is  such  a  simple  and  grand 
idea  that  it  has  fascinated  the  minds  of  men  in  all  ages,  so  that  the 
prevailing  hypothesis  of  philosophers  as  to  the  constitution  of  the 
universe  has  been,  and  still  is,  pantheistic.  Nevertheless,  pan- 
»;heism  is  demonstrably  false,  because  it  contradicts  the  intuitive 
convictions  of  our  moral  and  religious  nature.     It  is  not  enough. 


66  PART  II.   Ch.  n.  — nature  of  man." 

therefore,  that  a  theory  be  possible  or  conceirable.     It  must  have 
the  support  of  positive  proof. 

2.  Such  proof  the  doctrine  under  consideration  does  not  find  in 
the  Bible.  It  is  simply  a  hypothesis  on  which  certain  facts  of  the 
Scriptures  may  be  explained.  All  men  are  alike  ;  they  have  the 
same  faculties,  the  same  instincts  and  passions  ;  and  they  are  all 
born  in  sin.  These  and  other  similar  facts  admit  of  an  easy 
explanation  on  the  assumption  that  humanity  is  numerically  one 
and  the  same  substance  of  which  individuals  are  only  so  many 
different  manifestations  ;  just  as  a  thousand  different  magnets 
reveal  the  magnetic  force  which  is  the  same  in  all,  and  therefore 
all  magnets  are  alike.  But  as  the  facts  referred  to  may  be  explained 
on  divers  other  assumptions,  they  afford  no  proof  of  this  particular 
theory.  It  is  not  pretended  that  the  Bible  dii*ectly  teaches  the 
doctrine  in  question.  Nor  does  it  teach  anything  which  necessitates 
its  adoption.  On  the  contrary,  it  teaches  much  that  is  irrecon- 
cilable with  it. 

Not  Supported  hy  Consciousness. 

3.  The  hypothesis  under  consideration  derives  no  support  from 
consciousness.  We  are  conscious  of  our  own  existence.  We  are 
(in  one  sense)  conscious  of  the  existence  of  other  men.  But  we 
are  not  conscious  of  a  community  of  essence  in  ourselves  and  all 
other  men.  So  far  from  this  being  the  common  interpretation 
which  men  put  on  their  consciousness,  it  is  diametrically  opposed 
to  it.-  Every  man  believes  his  soul  to  be  a  distinct,  individual 
substance,  as  much  as  he  believes  his  body  to  be  distinct  and  sep- 
arate from  every  other  human  body.  Such  is  the  common  judgment 
of  men.  And  nothing  short  of  the  direct  assertion  of  the  Bible, 
or  arguments  which  amount  to  demonstration,  can  rationally  be 
admitted  to  invalidate  that  judgment.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
anything  concerning  the  constitution  of  our  nature  so  momentous 
in  its  consequences,  should  be  true,  which  does  not  in  some  way 
reveal  itself  in  the  common  consciousness  of  men.  There  is  nothing 
more  characteristic  of  the  Scriptures,  and  there  are  few  things 
which  more  clearly  prove  its  divine  origin,  than  that  it  takes  for 
granted  and  authenticates  all  the  facts  of  consciousness.  It  declares 
us  to  be  what  we  are  revealed  to  ourselves  as  being  in  the  very 
constitution  and  present  condition  of  our  nature.  It  recognizes 
the  soul  as  rational,  free,  and  responsible.  It  assumes  that  it  is 
distinct  from  the  body.  All  this  we  know  from  consciousness. 
But  we  do  not  know  that  the  essence  or  substance  of  our  soul  is 
numerically  the  same  as  the  substance  of  the  souls  of  all  men.     If 


§  3.]  REALISM.  57 

the  Bible  teaches  any  such  doctrine  it  teaches  something  outside 
of  the  teachings  of  consciousness,  and  something  to  which  those 
teachings,  in  the  judgment  of  the  vast  majority  of  men,  even  the 
most  enhghtened,  are  directly  opposed. 

Realism  Contrary  to  the  Teachings  of  Scripture. 

4.  The  Scriptures  not  only  dp  not  teach  the  doctrine  in 
question,  but  they  also  teach  what  is  inconsistent  with  it.  We 
have  already  seen  that  it  is  a  clearly  revealed  doctrine  of  the  Bible, 
and  part  of  the  faith  of  the  Church  universal,  that  the  soul  contin- 
ues to  exist  after  death  as  a  self-conscious,  individual  person.  This 
fact  is  inconsistent  with  the  theory  in  question.  A  given  plant  is  a 
material  organization,  animated  by  the  general  principle  of  vegetable 
life.  If  the  plant  is  destroyed  the  principle  of  vegetable  life  no 
longer  exists  as  to  that  plant.  It  may  exist  in  other  plants ;  but  that 
particular  plant  ceased  to  exist  when  the  material  organization  was 
dissolved.  Magnetism  continues  to  exist  as  a  force  in  nature,  but 
any  particular  magnet  ceases  to  be  when  it  is  melted,  or  volatilized. 
In  like  manner,  if  a  man  is  the  manifestation  of  a  generic  life,  or 
of  humanity  as  an  essence  common  to  all  men,  then  when  his  body 
dies  the  man  ceases  to  exist.  Humanity  continues  to  be,  but 
the  individual  man  no  longer  exists.  This  is  a  difficulty  which 
some  of  the  advocates  of  this  theory  endeavour  to  avoid*  by  giving 
up  what  is  essential  to  their  own  docti'ine.  Its  genuine  and  con- 
sistent advocates  admit  it  in  its  full  force.  The  anti-Christian 
portion  of  them  acknowledge  that  their  doctrine  is  inconsistent 
with  the  personal  immortality  of  man.  The  race,  they  say,  is 
immortal,  but  individual  men  are  not.  The  same  conclusion  is 
admitted  by  those  who  hold  the  analogous  pantheistic,  or  naturalistic 
doctrines.  If  a  man  is  only  the  modus  existendi,  a  form  in  which  a 
common  substance  or  life  reveals  itself,  it  matters  not  whether  that 
substance  be  humanity,  nature,  or  God,  when  the  form,  the  material 
organism,  is  destroyed,  the  man  as  a  man  ceases  to  exist.  Those 
advocates  of  the  doctrine  who  cling  to  Christianity,  while  they 
admit  the  difficulty,  endeavour  to  get  over  it  in  diffiirent  ways. 
Schleiermacher  admits  that  all  philosophy  is  against  the  doctrine 
of  the  personal  existence  of  man  in  a  future  state.  His  whole  sys- 
tem leads  to  the  denial  of  it.  But  he  says  that  the  Christian  must 
admit  it  on  the  authority  of  Christ.  Olshausen,  in  his  commentary 
on  the  New  Testament,  says,  when  explaining  1  Cor.  xv.  19,  20, 
and  verses  42-44,  that  the  Bible  knows  nothing  of  the  immortality 
of  the  soul.     He  pronounces  it  to  be  a  heathen  idea.     A  soul  with- 


58  PART  II.     Ch.   II.— nature    OF  MAN. 

out  a  body  loses  its  individuality.  It  ceases  to  be  a  person,  and  of 
course  loses  self-consciousness  and  all  that  is  connected  with  it.  As, 
however,  the  Scriptures  teach  that  men  are  to  exist  hereafter,  he 
says  their  bodies  must  also  continue  to  exist,  and  the  only  existence 
of  the  soul  during  the  interval  between  death  and  the  resurrection, 
■which  he  admits,  is  in  connection  ({.  e.,  vital  union)  with  the  disin- 
tegrated particles  of  the  body  in  the  grave  or  scattered  to  the  ends 
of  the  earth.  This  is  a  conclusion  to  which  his  doctrine  legiti- 
mately leads,  and  which  he  is  sufficiently  candid  to  admit.  Dr. 
Nevin,  a  disciple  of  Schleiermacher,  has  to  grapple  with  the  same 
difficulty.  His  book  entitled  "  The  Mystical  Presence,"  is  the 
clearest  and  ablest  exposition  of  the  theology  of  Schleiermacher 
which  has  appeared  in  our  language,  unless  Morell's  "  Philosophy 
of  Religion  "  be  its  equal.  He  denies  ^  all  dualism  between  the 
soul  and  body.  They  are  "  one  life."  The  one  cannot  exist 
without  the  other.  He  admits  that  what  the  Bible  teaches  of  the 
separate  existence  of  the  soul  between  death  and  the  resurrection, 
is  a  difficulty  "  which  it  is  not  easy,  at  present,  to  solve."  He 
does  nut  attempt  to  solve  it.  He  only  says  that  the  difficulty  is 
"  not  to  reconcile  Scripture  with  a  psychological  theory,  but  to 
bring  it  into  harmony  with  itself."  This  is  no  solution.  It  is  a 
virtual  admission  that  he  cannot  reconcile  the  Bible  with  his  psy- 
chological ■  theory.  The  doctrine  that  man  is  a  modus  existendi  of 
a  generic  humanity,  or  the  manifestation  of  the  general  principle 
of  humanity,  in  connection  with  a  given  corporeal  organization,  is 
inconsistent  with  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  the  separate  existence 
of  the  soul,  and  therefore  must  be  false. 

Inconsistent  with  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

5.  This  theory  is  inconsistent  with  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  It  necessitates  the  conclusion  that  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Spirit  are  no  more  one  God  than  Peter,  James,  and  John  are 
one  man.  The  persons  of  the  Trinity  are  one  God,  because  the 
Godhead  is  one  essence  ;  but  if  humanity  be  one  essence  numeri- 
cally the  same  in  all  men,  then  all  men  are  one  man  in  the  same 
sense  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  are  one  God.  This  is  a 
reductio  ad  ahsurdum.  It  is  clearly  taught  in  Scripture  and  uni- 
versally believed  in  the  Church  that  the  persons  of  the  Trinity 
are  one  God  in  an  infinitely  higher  sense  than  that  in  which  all 
men  are  one  man.  The  precise  diffi?rence  is,  that  the  essence 
common  to  the  j^ersons  of  the  Godhead  is  numerically  the  same  ; 

1  Page  171. 


§3.]  REALISM.  59 

whereas  the  essence  common  to  all  men  is  only  specifically  the 
same,  i.  e.,  of  the  same  kind,  although  numerically  different.  The 
theory  which  leads  to  the  opposite  conclusion  must  therefore  be  false. 
It  cannot  be  true  that  all  mankind  are  one  essence,  substance,  or 
organic  life,  existing  or  manifesting  itself  in  a  multitude  of  individ- 
ual persons.  This  is  a  difficulty  so  obvious  and  so  fatal  that  it  could 
not  fail  to  arrest  the  attention  of  realists  in  all  ages  and  of  every 
class.  The  great  point  of  dispute  in  the  Council  of  Nice  between 
the  Arians  and  orthodox  was,  whether  the  persons  of  the  Trinity 
are  ofxoi-  or  ofjioova-toL,  of  a  like  or  of  the  same  essence.  If  6/xoovcrioi, 
it  was  on  both  sides  admitted  that  they  are  one  God ;  because  if 
the  same  in  substance  they  are  equal  in  power  and  glory.  Now  it 
is  expressly  asserted  that  all  men  are  not  ofx-oc-  but  oixoovaLoi,  and 
therefore,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  they  must  constitute  one  man  in 
the  same  sense  as  there  is  one  God,  and  all  be  equal  in  every  attri- 
bute of  their  nature.^  Of  course  it  is  admitted  that  there  is  a 
legitimate  sense  of  the  word  in  which  all  men  may  be  said  to  be 
6fj.oov(TLoi,  when  by  6/aos  (jame^  is  meant  similar,  or  of  a  like  kind. 
In  this  sense  the  Greeks  said  that  the  bodies  of  men  and  of  other 
animals  were  consubstantial,  as  all  were  made  of  flesh  ;  and  that 
angels,  demons,  and  human  souls,  as  spiritual  beings,  are  also 
o/xooxjo-tot.  But  this  is  not  the  sense  in  which  the  word  is  used  by 
realists,  when  speaking  either  of  the  persons  of  the  Trinity  or  of 
men.  In  both  cases  the  word  same  means  numerical  oneness  ; 
men  are  of  the  same  numerical  essence  in  the  same  sense  in  which 
the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  are  the  same  in  substance. 
The  difference,  it  is  said,  between  the  two  cases  does  not  relate  to 
identity  of  essence,  which  is  the  same  in  both,  but  is  found  in  this, 
that  "  the  whole  nature  or  essence  is  in  the  divine  person  ;  but  the 
human  person  is  only  a  part  of  the  common  human  nature.  Gen- 
eration in  the  Godhead  admits  no  abscission  or  division  of  substance  ; 
but  generation  in  the  instance  of  the  creature  implies  separation  or 
division  of  essence.  A  human  person  is  an  individualized  portion 
of  humanity."^  It  must,  however,  be  remembered  that  humanity 
is  declared  to  be  a  spiritual  substance.  It  is  the  same  in  nature 
with  the  soul,  which  is  called  an  individualized  portion  of  human 
nature,  possessing  consciousness,  reason,  and  will.  But,  if  spirit- 
ual, it  is  indivisible.  Divisibility  is  one  of  the  primary  properties 
of  matter.  Whatever  Is  divisible  is  material.  If  therefore  human- 
ity, as  a  generic  substance,  admits  of  "  abscission  and  division,"  it 

1  See  History  of  Cliristian  Doctrine,  by  Dr.  Shedd,  vol.  ii.  p.  120. 

2  Jbid.  vol.  i.  p.  .343,  no(e. 


60  PART  II.   Ch.  n.  — nature  of  man. 

must  be  material.  A  part  of  reason,  a  piece  of  consciousness,  or 
a  fra£;ment  of  will,  are  contradictory,  or  unintelligible  forms  of 
expression.  If  humanity  is  of  the  same  essence  as  the  soul,  it  no 
more  admits  of  division  than  the  soul.  One  part  of  a  soul  cannot 
be  holy  and  another  unholy ;  one  part  saved  and  the  other  lost. 
The  objection  to  the  theory  under  consideration,  that  it  makes  the 
relation  between  individual  men  identical  with  that  between  the 
persons  of  the  Trinity,  remains,  therefore,  in  full  force.  It  is  not 
met  by  the  answer  just  referred  to,  which  answer  supposes  mind  to 
be  extended  and  divisible. 

Realism  Inconsistent  with  what  the  Bible  teaches  of  the  Person  and 

Work  of  Christ. 

6.  It  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  reconcile  the  doctrine  in 
question  with  what  the  Scriptures  teach  of  the  person  and  work  of 
Christ.  According  to  the  Bible,  the  Son  of  God  became  man  by 
taking  to  himself  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul.  According 
to  the  realistic  doctrine,  he  did  not  assume  a  reasonable  soul,  but 
generic  humanity.  What  is  this  but  the  whole  of  humanity,  of 
which,  according  to  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine,  individual  men 
are  the  portions.  Human  nature  as  a  generic  life,  humanity  as  a 
substance,  and  a  whole  substance,  was  taken  into  personal  union 
with  the  Son  of  God.  The  Logos  became  incarnate  in  the  race. 
This  is  certainly  not  the  Scriptural  doctrine.  The  Son  of  God 
became  a  man  ;  not  all  men.  He  assumed  an  individual  rational 
soul,  not  the  general  principle  of  humanity.  Besides  this,  it  is  the 
doctrine  of  those  who  adopt  this  theory  that  humanity  sinned  and 
fell  in  Adam.  The  rational,  moral,  voluntary  substance  called 
human  nature,  is,  or  at  least  was,  an  agent.  The  sin  of  Adam  was 
the  sin  not  of  an  individual,  but  of  this  generic  substance,  which 
by  that  sin  became  the  subject  both  of  guilt  and  of  depravity.  By 
reason  of  this  sin  of  human  nature,  the  theory  is,  that  all  individual 
men,  in  their  successive  generations,  in  whom  this  nature  is  revealed, 
or  in  whom,  as  they  express  it,  it  is  individualized,  came  into  the 
world  in  a  state  of  guilt  and  pollution.  We  do  not  now  refer  to  the 
numerous  and  serious  difficulties  connected  with  this  theory  as  a 
method  of  accounting  for  original  sin.  We  speak  of  it  only  in  its 
relation  to  Christ's  person.  If  human  nature,  as  a  generic  life,  a 
substance  of  which  all  men  partake,  became  both  guilty  and  pol- 
luted by  the  apostasy ;  and  that  generic  humanity,  as  distinguished 
from  a  newly  created  and  holv  rational  soul,  was  assumed  by  the 
Son  of  God,  how  can  we  avoid  the  conclusion  that  Clulst  was,  in 


§4.]  ANOTHER   FORM   OF   REALISM.  61 

his  human  nature,  personally  guilty  and  sinful  ?  This  is  a  legiti- 
mate consequence  of  this  theory.  And  this  consequence  being  not 
only  false  but  blasphemous,  the  theory  itself  must  be  false.  As 
the  principle  that  humanity  is  one  substance,  and  all  men  are 
o/xoouortot  ill  the  sense  of  partaking  of  the  same  numerical  essence, 
involves  consequences  destructive  of  the  Scriptural  doctrines  of  the 
Trinity  and  of  the  person  of  Christ,  so  it  might  easily  be  shown 
that  it  overthrows  the  common  faith  of  the  Protestant  churches  on 
the  doctrines  of  justification,  regeneration,  the  sacraments,  and  the 
Church.  It  is  enough  for  our  present  purpose  to  remark  that, 
as  a  historical  fact,  the  consistent  and  thorough-going  advocates 
of  this  doctrine  do  teach  an  entirely  different  method  of  salvation. 
Many  men  adopt  a  principle,  and  do  not  carry  it  out  to  its  legitimate 
consequences.  But  others,  more  logical,  or  more  reckless,  do  not 
hesitate  to  embrace  all  its  results.  In  the  works  of  Morell  and  of 
Dr.  Nevin,  above  referred  to,  the  theological  student  may  find  a 
fearless  pressing  of  the  genuine  principle  of  realism,  to  the  utter 
overthrow  of  the  Protestant,  and,  it  may  be  added,  of  the  Christian 
faith. 

7.  Other  objections  to  this  theory  may  be  more  appropriately 
considered  when  we  come  to  speak  of  the  several  doctrines  to 
which  it  is  applied.  It  is  sufficient  in  the  conclusion  of  the  present 
discussion  to  say  that  what  is  said  to  be  true  of  the  genus  homo,  is 
assumed  to  be  true  of  all  genera  and  species  in  the  animal  and  veg- 
etable worlds.  The  individual  in  all  cases  is  assumed  to  be  only  the 
manifestation  or  modus  existendi  of  the  generic  substance.  Thus 
there  is  a  bovine,  an  equine,  and  a  feline  substance,  having  an  ob- 
jective existence  of  which  all  oxen,  all  horses,  and  all  animals  of 
the  cat-race,  are  the  manifestations.  And  so  of  all  species,  whether 
of  plants  or  animals.  This  is  almost  inconceivable.  Compared 
to  this  theory,  the  assumption  of  a  naturgeist,  or  anima  mundi,  or 
of  one  universal  substance,  is  simplicity  itself.  That  such  a  theory 
should  be  set  forth  and  made  the  foundation,  or  rather  the  con- 
trolling principle  of  all  Christian  doctrines,  is  most  unreasonable 
and  dangerous.  This  realistic  doctine,  until  recently,  has  been  as 
much  exploded  as  the  eternal  ideas  of  Plato  or  the  forms  of  Aris- 
totle. 

§  4.  Another  form  of  the  Realistic  Theory. 

There  is,  however,  another  phase  of  this  doctrine,  which  it  is 
necessary  to  mention.  The  doctrine  that  genera  and  species  are 
real  substances  existing  prior  to  individuals,  and  independent  of 
them,  is  the  old,  genuine,  and  most  intelligible  form  of  Realism. 


62        PART  II.  Ch.  it.  — nature  OF  MAN. 

It  was  expressed  in  the  schools  by  saying  that  Universalia  are  anti' 
rem.  Tiie  other  form  of  the  doctrine  asserts  that  the  Universalia 
are  in  re.  That  is  that  the  universals  exist  only  in  the  individuals  ; 
and  that  the  individuals  alone  are  real.  "  L'identite  des  individus," 
says  Cousin  ^  in  his  exposition  of  this  form  of  the  doctrine,  "  d'un 
meme  genre  ne  vient  pas  de  leur  essence  meme,  car  cette  essence 
est  diffdrente  en  chacun  d'eux,  niais  de  certains  dldments  qui  se 
retrouvent  dans  tous  ces  individus  sans  aucune  diffdrence,  indiffer- 
enter.  Cette  nouvelle  theorie  differe  de  la  premiere  en  ce  que  les 
universaux  ne  sont  plus  I'essence  de  I'etre,  la  substance  meme  des 
choses  ;  mais  elle  s'en  rapproche  en  ce  que  les  universaux  existent 
reellement,  et  qu'existant  dans  plusieurs  individus  sans  diflPerence? 
ils  forment  leur  identite  et  par  la  leur  genre."  Again, ^  he  says, 
"  Le  principe  de  la  nouvelle  thdorie  est  que  I'essence  de  chaque 
chose  est  leur  individuality,  que  les  individus  seuls  existent,  etqu'il 
n'y  a  point  en  dehors  des  individus  d'essence  appelees  les  universaux, 
les  especes  et  les  genres  ;  mais  que  I'individu  lui-meme  contient 
tout  cela,  selon  les  divers  points  de  vue  sous  lequels  on  le  considere."^ 
Thus  Socrates  as  an  individual  man  has  his  own  essence,  which, 
with  its  peculiarities,  makes  him  Socrates.  Neglect  those  pecidiar- 
ities  and  consider  him  as  rational  and  mortal,  then  you  have  the 
idea  of  species  ;  neglect  rationality  and  mortality,  and  consider 
him  as  an  animal,  then  you  have  the  idea  of  the  genus  ;  neglect  all 
these  forms  ("  relictis  omnibus  formis"),  and  you  have  oidy  the  idea 
of  substance.  According  to  this  view  "  les  especes  et  les  genres, 
les  plus  elevds  comme  les  plus  infdrieurs,  sont  les  individus  eux- 
memes,  considdrds  sous  divers  point  de  vue."  *  This,  according  to 
the  plain  sense  of  the  terms,  amounts  to  the  common  doctrine.  In- 
dividuals alone  exist.  Certain  individuals  have  some  distinguish- 
ing properties  or  attributes  in  common.  They  constitute  a  par- 
ticular species.  These  and  other  individuals  of  different  species 
have  other  properties  common  to  them  all,  and  they  constitute  a 
genus,  and  so  orders,  and  classes,  until  we  get  to  the  highest  cate- 
gory of  being,  which  includes  all.  But  if  all  beings  are  assumed 
to  be  one  substance,  which  substance  with  certain  added  qualities 
or  accidents  constitutes  a  class,  with  certain  other  additions,  an 
order,  with  still  further  modifications,  a  genus,  a  species,  an  indi- 
vidual, then  we  have  the  old  theory  back  again,  only  extended  so 
as  to  have  a  pantheistic  aspect. 

1  Fraffvients  PhUosoplilques,  p.  162.  ^  Jbid,  p.  168. 

8  See  the  exposition  by  Ab^lard  himself  quoted  on  page  170  of  Cousin. 
*  Cousin,  Fracjmtnts  Philosophiques,  p.  183. 


§4.]  ANOTHER   FORM   OF   REALISM.  63 

Some  scientific  men,  instead  of  defining  species  as  a  group  of  in- 
dividuals having  certain  characteristics  in  common,  say  with  Pro- 
fessor Dana,  that  it  "  corresponds  to  the  specific  amount  or  con- 
dition of  concentred  force,  defined  in  the  act  or  law  of  creation  ;" 
or  with  Dr.  Morton,  that  it  is  "  a  primordial  organic  form  ;  "  or 
with  Agassiz,  that  it  is  an  original  immaterial  principle  which  de- 
termines the  form  or  characteristics  of  the  individuals  constituting  a 
distinct  group.  These  are  only  different  modes  of  accounting  for 
the  fact  that  all  the  individuals  of  a  given  species  have  certain  char- 
acteristics or  fundamental  qualities  in  common.  To  such  state- 
ments there  is  no  objection.  But  when  it  is  assumed  that  these 
original  primordial  forms,  as  in  the  case  of  humanity,  for  exam- 
ple, are  by  the  law  of  propagation  transmitted  from  generation  to 
generation,  so  as  to  constitute  all  the  individuals  of  the  species 
essentially  one,  that  is,  one  in  essence  or  substance,  so  that  the  act 
of  the  first  individual  of  the  species  (of  Adam,  for  example)  be- 
ing the  act  of  the  substance  numerically  the  same  in  all  the  mem- 
bers of  that  species,  is  the  act  of  each  individual  member,  then 
something  essentially  new  is  added  to  the  above  given  scientific 
definition  of  species,  and  we  return  to  the  original  and  genuine 
form  of  Realism  in  its  most  offensive  features.  It  would  be  easy 
to  show,  (1st.)  that  generation  or  the  law  of  propagation  both  in 
plants  and  in  animals  is  absolutely  inscrutable  ;  as  much  so  as  the 
nature  of  matter,  mind,  or  life,  in  themselves  considered.  We  can 
no  more  tell  what  generation  is,  than  what  matter  is,  or  what  mind 
is.  (2d.)  That  it  is  therefore  unreasonable  and  dangerous  to  make 
a  given  theory  as  to  the  nature  of  generation  or  the  law  of  propa- 
gation the  basis  for  the  explanation  of  Christian  doctrines.  (3d.) 
That  whatever  may  be  the  secret  and  inscrutable  process  of  propa- 
gation, it  does  not  involve  the  transmission  of  the  same  numerical 
essence,  so  that  a  progenitor  and  his  descendants  are  one  and  the 
same  substance.  This  assumption  is  liable  to  all  the  objections 
already  urged  against  the  original  form  of  the  realistic  doctrine. 
The  theory  is  moreover  destitute  of  all  evidence  either  fi-om  expe- 
rience or  analogy.  There  is  no  conceivable  sense  in  which  all  the 
oaks  now  on  the  earth  are  identical  as  to  their  substance  with  the 
oaks  originally  created.  And  there  is  no  conceivable  sense  in 
which  we  and  all  mankind  are  identically  the  same  substance  with 
Adam.  If  a  thousand  candles  are  successively  lighted  from  one 
candle  tht'y  do  not  thereby  become  one  candle.  There  is  not  a 
communication  of  the  substance  of  the  first  to  the  second,  and  of 
the  second  to  the  others  in   their  order,  so  as  to   make  it   in   any 


64  PART  n.   Ch.  n.— nature  of  man. 

sense  true  that  the  substance  of  the  first  is  numerically  the  same 
with  that  of  all  the  others.  The  simple  fact  is  that  by  the  laws  of 
matter  ordained  by  God,  the  state  in  which  a  lighted  candle  is,  pro- 
duces certain  changes  or  movements  in  the  constituent  elements  of 
the  wick  of  another  candle  when  the  two  are  brought  into  contact, 
which  movements  induce  other  movements  in  the  constituent  parti- 
cles of  the  surrounding  atmosphere,  which  are  connected  with  the 
evolution  of  light  and  heat.  But  there  is  no  communication  of 
substance  involved  in  the  process.  An  acorn  which  falls  from  an 
oak  to-day,  is  composed  not  of  the  same  particles  of  matter  from 
which  the  original  acorn  was  formed,  but  of  matter  of  the  same 
kind,  and  arranged  in  the  same  way.  It  may  be  said  to  be  im- 
bued with  chemical  and  vital  forces  of  the  same  kind  with  the 
original  acorn,  but  not  with  numerically  the  same  forces.  So  of 
all  plants  and  animals.  We  are  of  the  same  nature  with  Adam 
in  the  same  sense  that  all  animals  of  one  species  are  the  same. 
The  sameness  does  not  consist  in  numencal  identity  of  essence  or 
of  vital  forces,  or  of  reason  or  will,  but  in  the  sameness  of  kind 
and  community  of  origin. 

Besides  the  origin  and  the  nature  of  man,  there  are  tM^o  other 
questions,  which  are  more  or  less  involved  in  what  the  Scriptures 
teach  concerning  mankind,  and  which  demand  attention  before  we 
turn  to  the  moral  and  religious  condition  of  the  race.  The  first  of 
these  concerns  the  Origin  of  the  Soul,  and  the  second  the  Unity  of 
the  Race. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SOUL. 

§  1.   Theory  of  Preexistence. 

Three  theories  have  been  advanced  as  to  the  origin  of  the  soul. 
First,  that  of  the  Preexistence  of  the  soul ;  secondly,  that  of  Tra- 
duction, or  the  doctrine  that  the  soul  of  the  child  is  derived  from 
the  soul  of  the  parent ;  thirdly,  that  of  immediate  Creation,  or  the 
doctrine  that  the  soul  is  not  derived  as  the  body  is,  but  owes  its 
existence  to  the  creative  power  of  God, 

The  doctrine  of  the  preexistence  of  the  soul  has  been  presented 
in  two  forms.  Plato  held  that  ideas  are  eternal  in  the  divine  mind  ; 
that  these  ideas  are  not  mere  thoughts,  but  living  entities  ;  that 
they  constitute  the  essence  and  life  of  all  external  things  ;  the 
universe  and  all  it  contains  are  these  ideas  realized,  clothed  in 
matter,  and  developed  in  history.  There  was  thus  an  ideal,  or  in- 
telligible world,  anterior  to  the  world  as  actually  existing  in  time. 
What  Plato  called  ideas,  Aristotle  called  forms.  He  denied  that 
the  ideal  was  antei'ior  to  the  actual.  Matter  is  eternal,  and  all 
things  consist  of  matter  and  form  —  by  form  being  meant  that 
which  gives  character,  or  determines  the  nature  of  individual 
things.  As  in  other  respects,  so  also  in  this,  the  Platonic,  or 
Aristo-Platonic  philosophy,  had  much  influence  on  Christian  The- 
ology. And  some  of  the  fathers  and  of  the  schoolmen  approached 
more  or  less  nearly  to  this  doctrine  of  the  preexistence,  not  only  of 
the  soul,  but  of  all  things  in  this  ideal  world.  St.  Bernard,  in 
his  strenuous  opposition  to  nominalism,  adopted  the  Platonic  doc- 
trine of  ideas,  which  he  identified  with  genera  and  species.  These 
ideas,  he  taught,  were  eternal,  although  posterior  to  God,  as  an 
effect  is  in  the  order  of  nature  after  its  cause.  Providence  applies 
the  idea  to  matter,  which  becomes  animated  and  takes  form,  and  thus 
("du  monde  intelligible  est  sorti  le  monde  sensible  ")  "ex  mundo 
intelligibili  muudus  sensibilis  perfectus  natus  est  ex  perfecto."  ^ 
Among  modern  writers,  Delitzsch  comes  nearest  to  this  Platonic 
doctrine.     He  says,  "  Es  giebt  nach  der  Schrift  eine  Priiexistenz 

1  Cousin,  Fragments  Philosophiques,  pp.  172-176. 

VOL.   II.  5 


fiB  PART  II.     Cii.  ni.  — ORIGIN   OF   THE   SOUL. 

des  Meiisclien  und  zwar  elne  ideale  ;  .  .  .  .  eine  Priiexistenz  .... 
vermdge  welcher  Mensch  und  Mensclilieit  nicht  bios  eiii  fenizu- 
kiinftiges  Object  gottliclier  Voraussicht,  sondeiu  ein  gegenwiirtiges 

Object  gottlicher  Anschauung  sind  im  Spiegel  derWeisheit 

Nicht  bios  Philosopliie  and  falschberiihmte  Gnosis,  sondern  auch  die 
Sclirift  weiss  und  spricht  von  einer  gottlichen  Idealwelt,  zu  welcher 
sich  die  Zeitwelt  wie  die  geschichtliche  Verwirklichuno;  eines 
ewio-en  Grundrisses  verhalt.^  That  is,  "  There  is  accordino;  to  the 
Scriptures,  an  ideal  preexistence  of  man  ;  a  preexistence  in  virtue 
of  which  man  and  humanity  are  contemplated  by  the  divine  om- 
niscience not  merely  as  objects  lying  far  off  in  the  future,  but  as 
present  in  the  mirror  of  his  wisdom.  Not  only  philosophy  and 
the  so  called  Gnosis,  but  also  the  Scriptures  recognize  and  avow  a 
divine  ideal  world  to  which  the  actual  world  stands  related  as  the 
historical  development  of  an  eternal  conception."  It  is  doubtful, 
however,  whether  Delitzsch  meant  much  more  by  this  than  that  the 
omniscience  of  God  embraces  from  eternity  the  knowledge  of  all 
things  possible,  and  that  his  purpose  determined  from  eternity  the 
futurition  of  all  actual  events,  so  that  his  decree  or  plan  as  existing 
in  the  divine  mind  is  realized  in  the  external  world  and  its  history. 
The  mechanist  has  in  his  mind  a  clear  conception  of  the  machine 
which  he  is  about  to  make.  But  it  is  on]y  by  a  figure  of  speech 
that  the  machine  can  be  said  to  preexist  in  the  artist's  mind.  This 
is  very  different  from  the  Platonic  and  Realistic  theory  of  preexist- 
ence. 

Origen's  Doctrine. 

Preexistence,  as  taught  by  Origen,  and  as  adopted  here  and 
there  by  some  few  philosophers  and  theologians,  is  not  the  Platonic 
doctrine  of  an  ideal-world.  It  supposes  that  the  souls  of  men  had 
a  separate,  conscious,  personal  existence  in  a  previous  state  ;  that 
having  sinned  in  that  preexistent  state,  they  are  condemned  to  be 
born  into  this  world  in  a  state  of  sin  and  in  connection  with  a 
material  body.  This  doctrine  was  connected  by  Origen  with  his 
theory  of  an  eternal  creation.  The  present  state  of  being  is  only 
one  epoch  in  the  existence  of  the  human  soul.  It  has  passed 
through  innumerable  other  epochs  and  forms  of  existence  in  the 
past,  and  is  to  go  through  other  innumerable  such  epochs  in 
the  future.  He  held  to  a  metempsychosis  very  similar  to  that 
taught  by  Orientals  both  ancient  and  modern.  But  even  without 
the  encumbrance  of  this  idea  of  the  endless  transmutation  of  the 
soul,  the  doctrine  itself  has  never  been  adopted  in  the  Church.     It 

1  Biblische  Psychologie,  p.  23. 


§1.]  THEORY   OF   PREEXISTENCE.  67 

may  be  said  to  have  begun  and  ended  with  Origen,  as  it  was 
rejected  both  by  the  Greeks  and  Latins,  and  has  only  been  advo- 
cated by  individual  writers  from  that  day  to  this.  It  does  not  pre- 
tend to  be  a  Scriptural  doctrine,  and  therefore  cannot  be  an  object 
of  faith.  The  Bible  never  speaks  of  a  creation  of  men  before 
Adam,  or  of  any  apostasy  anterior  to  his  fall,  and  it  never  refers 
the  sinfulness  of  our  present  condition  to  any  higher  source  than 
the  sin  of  our  first  parent.  The  assumption  that  all  human  souls 
were  created  at  the  same  time  that  the  soul  of  Adam  was  created, 
and  remain  in  a  dormant,  unconscious  state  until  united  to  the 
bodies  for  which  they  were  designed,  has  been  adopted  by  so  few 
as  hardly  to  merit  a  place  in  the  history  of  theological  opinion. 

It  is  a  far  more  important  question,  whether  the  soul  of  each 
man  is  immediately  created,  or,  whether  it  is  generated  by  the 
parents.  The  former  is  known,  in  theology,  as  "Creationism,"  the 
latter  as  "  Traducianism."  The  Greek  Church  from  the  first  took 
ground  in  favour  of  creationism  as  alone  consistent  with  the  true 
nature  of  the  soul.  Tertullian  in  the  Latin  Church  was  almost  a 
materialist,  at  least  he  used  the  language  of  materialism,  and  held 
that  the  soul  was  as  much  begotten  as  the  body.  Jerome  opposed 
that  doctrine.  Augustine  was  also  very  adverse  to  it  ;  but  in  his 
controversy  with  Pelagius  on  the  propagation  of  sin,  he  was 
tempted  to  favour  the  theory  of  traduction  as  affording  an  easier 
explanation  of  the  fact  that  we  derive  a  corrupt  nature  from  Adam. 
He  never,  however,  could  bring  himself  fully  to  adopt  it.  Cre- 
ationism became  subsequently  the  almost  universally  received  doc- 
trine of  the  Latin,  as  it  had  always  been  of  the  Greek,  Church. 
At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  the  Protestants  as  a  body  adhered 
to  the  same  view.  Even  the  Form  of  Concord,  the  authoritative 
symbol  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  favours  creationism.  The  body 
of  the  Lutheran  theologians  of  the  seventeenth  century,  however, 
adopted  the  theory  of  traduction.  Among  the  Reformed  the 
reverse  was  true.  Calvin,  Beza,  Turrettin,  and  the  great  majority 
of  the  Reformed  theologians  were  creationists,  only  here  and  there 
one  adopted  the  ex  traduce  theory.  In  modern  times  discussion  on 
this  point  has  been  renewed.  Many  of  the  recent  German  theo- 
logians, and  such  as  are  inclined  to  realism  in  any  form,  have 
become  more  or  less  zealously  the  advocates  of  traducianism. 
This,  however,  is  far  from  being  the  universal  opinion  of  the  Ger- 
mans. Perhaps  the  majority  of  the  German  philosophers  agree 
with  Giinther :  ^  "  Traducianism  has  its  functions  in  respect  to  the 

1   Viivschule  der  Speculativen  Theologie,  vol.  ii.  181. 


68  PART  I.   Ch.  m.  — origin  of  the  soul. 

animal  life  of  man  ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  province  of  Creation- 
ism  is  with  the  soul ;  and  it  would  travel  out  of  its  province  if  it 
extended  the  immediate  creative  action  of  God  to  that  animal  life, 
which  is  the  principle  of  his  body's  existence."  ^ 

§  2.     Traducianism. 

I  What  is  meant  by  the  term  traduction  is  in  general  sufficiently 
clear  from  the  signification  of  the  word.  Traducianists  on  the  one 
hand  deny  that  the  soul  is  created  ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  they 
affirm  that  it  is  produced  by  the  law  of  generation,  being  as  truly 
derived  from  the  parents  as  the  body.     The  whole  man,  soul  and 

,  body,  is  begotten.  The  whole  man  is  derived  from  the  substance 
of  his  progenitors.  Some  go  further  than  others  in  their  assertions 
on  this  subject.  Some  affirm  that  the  soul  is  susceptible  of  "  ab- 
scission and  division,"  so  that  a  portion  of  the  soul  of  the  parents 
is  communicated  to  the  child.  Others  shrink  from  such  ex- 
pressions, and  yet  maintain  that  there  is  a  true  derivation  of  the 
one  from  the  other.  Both  classes,  however,  insist  on  the  numer- 
ical identity  of  essence  in  Adam  and  all  his  posterity  both  as  to 
soul  and  as  to  body.  The  more  enlightened  and  candid  advocates 
of  traducianism  admit  that  the  Scriptures  are  silent  on  the  subject. 
Augustine  had  said  the  same  thing  a  thousand  years  ago.  "  De 
re  obscurissima  disputatur,  non  adjuvantibus  divinarum  scriptura- 
rum  certis  clarisque  documentis."  The  passages  cited  in  support 
of  the  doctrine  teach  nothing  decisive  on  the  subject.  That  Adam 
begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,  and  after  his  own  image,  and  called 
his  name  Seth,  only  asserts  that  Seth  was  like  his  father.  It  sheds 
no  light  on  the  mysterious  process  of  generation,  and  does  not 
teach  how  the  likeness  of  the  child  to  the  parent  is  secured  by 
physical  causes.  When  Job  asks,  "  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing 
out  of  an  unclean  ?  "  and  when  our  Lord  says,  "  That  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,"  the  fact  is  asserted  that  like  begets  like ; 
that  a  corrupt  nature  is  transmitted  from  parent  to  child.  But 
that  this  can  be  done  only  by  the  transmission  of  numerically  the 
same  substance  is  a  gratuitous  assumption.  More  stress  is  laid  on 
certain  facts  of  Scripture  which  are  assumed  to  favour  this  theory. 
That  in  the  creation  of  the  woman  no  mention  is  made  of  God's 
having  breathed  into  her  the  breath  of  life,  is  said  to  imply  that 
her  soul  as  well  as  her  body  was  derived  from  Adam.  Silence, 
however,  proves  nothing.  In  Gen.  i.  27,  it  is  simply  said,  ''•  God 
created  man  in  his  own  image,"  just  as  it  is  said  that  He  created 

1  Wilberforce  On  the  Incarnation,  p.  47. 


§  2.]  TRADUCIANISM.  69 

"  every  creeping  thing  tliat  creepeth  upon  the  earth."     Nothing 
is  there  said  of  his  breathing  into  man  the  breath  of  life,  i.  e.,  a 
principle  of  rational  life.     Yet  we  know  that  it  was  done.     Its  not 
being  expressly  mentioned   in  the  case   of  Eve,  therefore,  is  no 
proof  that  it  did  not  occur.     Again,  it  is  said,  that  God's  resting 
on  the  Sabbath,  implies  that  his  creating  energy  was  not  after- 
wards exerted.     This  is  understood  to  draw  the  line  between  the 
immediate   creation   and   the   production  of  effects   in  nature   by 
second  causes  under  the  providential  control  of  God.     The  doc- 
trine of  creationism,  on  the  other  hand,  assumes  that  God  con- 
stantly, now  as  well  as  at  the  beginning,  exercises  his  immediate 
agency  in  producing  something  out  of  nothing.     But,  in  the  first 
place,  we  do  not  know  how  the  agency  of  God  is  connected  with 
the  operation  of  second  causes,  how  far  that  agency  is  mediate, 
and  how  far  it  is  immediate  ;  and  in  the  second  place,  we  do  know 
that  God  has  not  bound   himself  to  mere  providential   direction  ; 
that  his  omnipresent  power  is  ever  operating  through  means  and 
without  means  in  the  whole  sphere  of  history  and  of  nature.     Of 
all  arguments  in  favor  of  traducianism  the  most  effective  is  that 
derived  from  the  transmission  of  a  sinful  nature  from  Adam  to  his 
posterity.     It  is  insisted  that  this  can  neither  be  explained  nor  jus- 
tified unless  we  assume  that  Adam's  sin  was  our  sin  and  our  guilt, 
and  that  the  identical  active,  intelligent,  voluntary  substance  which 
transgressed   in  him,   has    been   transmitted    to   us.     This    is   an 
argument  which  can  be  fully  considered   only  when  we  come  to 
treat  of  original  sin.     For  the  present  it  is  enough  to  repeat  the 
remark  just  made,  that  the  fact  is  one  thing  and  the  explanation 
of  the  fact  is  another  thing.     The  fact  is  admitted  that  the  sin  of 
Adam  in  a  true  and  important  sense  is  our  sin,  —  and  that  we  de- 
rive from  him  a  corrupt  nature  ;    but  that  this  necessitates  the 
adoption  of  the  ex  traduce  doctrine  as  to  the  origin  of  the  soul,  is 
not  so  clear.     It  has  been  denied  by  the  vast  majority  of  the  most 
strenuous  defenders  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  in  all  ages  of 
the  Church.     To  call  creationism  a  Pelagian  principle  is  only  an 
evidence  of  ignorance.     Again,  it  is  urged  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
incarnation  necessarily  involves  the  truth  of  the  ex  traduce  theory. 
Christ  was  born  of  a  woman.     He  was  the  seed  of  the  woman. 
Unless  both  as  to  soul  and  body  derived  from  his  human  mother, 
it  is  said,  He  cannot  truly  be  of  the   same   race  with  us.     The 
Lutheran  theologians,  therefore,  say  :   "  Si  Christus  non  assumjisis- 
set  animam  ab  anima  Marias,  animam  humanam  non  redemisset.^ 
This,  however,  is  a  simple  non  sequitur.     All  that  is  necessary  is 


70  PART  IL    Ch.  m.— ORIGIN^   OF  THE   SOUL. 

tliat  Christ  should  be  a  man,  a  son  of  David,  in  the  same  sense 
as  any  other  of  the  posterity  of  David,  save  only  his  miraculous 
conception.  He  was  formed  ex  suhstantia  matris  suce  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  every  child  born  of  a  woman  is  born  of  her 
substance,  but  what  that  sense  is,  his  birth  does  not  determine. 
The  most  plausible  argument  in  favour  of  traducianism  is  the 
undeniable  fact  of  the  transmission  of  the  ethnical,  national, 
family,  and  even  parental,  peculiarities  of  mind  and  temper. 
This  seems  to  evince  that  there  is  a  derivation  not  only  of  the 
body  but  also  of  the  soul  in  which  these  peculiarities  inhere.  But 
even  this  argument  is  not  conclusive,  because  it  is  impossible  for 
us  to  determine  to  what  proximate  cause  these  peculiarities  are 
due.  They  may  all  be  referred,  for  what  we  know,  to  something 
peculiar  in  the  physical  constitution.  Tiiat  the  mind  is  greatly 
influenced  by  the  body  cannot  be  denied.  And  a  body  having  the 
physical  peculiarities  belonging  to  any  race,  nation,  or  family,  may 
determine  within  certain  limits  the  character  of  the  soul. 

§  3.    Creationism. 

The  common  doctrine  of  the  Church,  and  especially  of  the 
Reformed  theologians,  lias  ever  been  that  the  soul  of  the  child  is 
not  generated  or  derived  from  the  parents,  but  that  it  is  created 
by  the  immediate  agency  of  God,  The  arguments  generally  urged 
in  favour  of  this  view  are,  — 

1.  That  it  is  more  consistent  with  the  prevailing  representations 
of  the  Scriptures.  In  the  original  account  of  the  creation  there  is 
a  marked  distinction  made  between  the  body  and  the  soul.  The 
one  is  from  the  earth,  the  other  from  God.  This  distinction  is 
kept  up  throughout  the  Bible.  The  body  and  soul  are  not  only 
represented  as  different  substances,  but  also  as  having  different 
origins.  The  body  shall  return  to  dust,  says  the  wise  man,  and 
the  spirit  to  God  who  gave  it.  Here  the  origin  of  the  soul  is 
represented  as  different  from  and  higher  than  that  of  the  body. 
The  former  is  from  God  in  a  sense  in  which  the  latter  is  not.  In 
like  manner  God  is  said  to  form  "  the  spirit  of  man  within  him  " 
(Zech.  xii.  1)  ;  to  give  "  breath  unto  the  people  upon  "  the  earth, 
"  and  spirit  to  them  that  walk  therein."  (Is.  xlii.  5.)  This 
language  nearly  agrees  with  the  account  of  the  original  creation, 
in  which  God  is  said  to  have  breathed  into  man  the  breath  of  life, 
to  indicate  that  the  soul  is  not  earthy  or  material,  but  had  its  origin 
immediately  from  God.  Hence  He  is  called  "  God  of  the  spirits  of 
all  flesh."     (Num.  xvi.  22.)     It  could  not  well  be  said  that  He  is 


§3.]  CREATIONISM.  71 

God  of  the  bodies  of  all  men.  The  relation  in  which  the  soul  stands 
to  God  as  its  God  and  creator  is  very  different  from  that  in  which 
the  body  stands  to  Him.  And  hence  in  Heb.  xii.  9,  it  is  said, 
"  We  have  had  fathers  of  our  flesh  which  corrected  us,  and  we 
gave  them  reverence  :  shall  we  not  much  rather  be  in  subjection 
unto  the  Father  of  spirits,  and  live  ?  "  The  obvious  antithesis  here 
presented  is  between  those  who  are  the  fathers  of  our  bodies  and 
Him  who  is  the  Father  of  our  spirits.  Our  bodies  are  derived  from 
our  earthly  parents,  our  souls  ai'e  derived  from  God.  This  is  ^ 
in  accordance  with  the  familiar  use  of  the  word  flesh,  Avhere  it  is 
contrasted,  either  expressly  or  by  implication,  with  the  soul.  Paul 
speaks  of  those  who  had  not  "  seen  his  face  in  the  flesh,"  of  "  the 
life  he  now  lived  in  the  flesh."  He  tells  the  Philippians  that  it 
was  needful  for  them  that  he  should  remain  "  in  the  flesh  ;  "  he 
speaks  of  his  "  mortal  flesh."  The  Psalmist  says  of  the  Messiah, 
"  my  flesh  shall  rest  in  hope,"  which  the  Apostle  explains  to  mean 
that  his  flesh  should  not  see  corruption.  In  all  these,  and  in  a 
multitude  of  similar  passages,  flesh  means  the  body,  and  "fathers 
of  our  flesh  "  means  fathers  of  our  bodies.  So  far,  thei-efore,  as 
the  Scriptures  reveal  anything  on  the  subject,  their  authority  is 
against  tradacianism  and  in  favour  of  creationism. 

Argument  from  the  Nature  of  the  Soul. 
2.  The  latter  doctrine,  also,  is  clearly  most  consistent  with  the 
nature  of  the  soul.  The  soul  is  admitted,  among  Christians,  to  be 
immaterial  and  spiritual.  It  is  indivisible.  The  traducian  doctrine 
denies  this  universally  acknowledged  truth.  It  asserts  that  the 
soul  admits  of  "separation  or  division  of  essence."-^  On  the  same 
ground  that  the  Church  universally  rejected  the  Gnostic  doctrine 
of  emanation  as  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  God  as  a  spirit,  it 
has,  with  nearly  the  same  unanimity,  rejected  the  doctrine  that  the 
soul  admits  of  division  of  substance.  This  is  so  serious  a  difficulty 
that  some  of  the  advocates  of  the  ex  traduce  doctrine  endeavour  to 
avoid  it  by  denying  that  their  theory  assumes  any  such  separation 
or  division  of  the  substance  of  the  soul.  But  this  denial  avails  little. 
They  maintain  that  the  same  numerical  essence  which  constituted 
the  soul  of  Adam  constitutes  our  souls.  If  this  be  so,  then  either 
humanity  is  a  general  essence  of  which  individual  men  are  the 
modes  of  existence,  or  what  was  wholly  in  Adam  is  distributively, 
partitively,  and  by  separation,  in  the  multitude  of  his  descendants. 
Derivation    of  essence,   therefore,   does   imply,   and    is   generally 

1  Shedd's  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  vol.  i.  p.  343,  note. 


72  PART  n.  ch.  ni.  — origin  of  the  soul. 

admitted  to  imply,  separation  or  division  of  essence.  And  this  must 
be  so  if  numerical  identity  of  essence  in  all  mankind  is  assumed  to 
be  secured  by  generation  or  propagation. 

3.  A  third  argument  in  favour  of  creationism  and  against  tra- 
ducianism  is  derived  from  the  Scriptural  doctrine  as  to  the  person 
of  Christ.  He  was  very  man  ;  He  had  a  true  human  nature ;  a 
true  body  and  a  rational  soul.  He  was  born  of  a  woman.  He 
was,  as  to  his  flesh,  the  son  of  David.  He  was  descended  from  the 
fathers.  He  was  in  all  points  made  like  as  we  are,  yet  without 
sin.  This  is  admitted  on  both  sides.  But,  as  before  remarked  in 
reference  to  realism,  this,  on  the  theory  of  traducianism,  necessitates 
the  conclusion  that  Christ's  human  nature  was  guilty  and  sinful. 
We  are  partakers  of  Adam's  sin  both  as  to  guilt  and  pollution, 
because  the  same  numerical  essence  which  sinned  in  him  is  com- 
municated to  us.  Sin,  it  is  said,  is  an  accident,  and  supposes  a 
substance  in  which  it  inheres,  or  to  which  it  pertains.  Community 
in  sin  supposes,  therefore,  community  of  essence.  If  we  were  not 
in  Adam  as  to  essence  we  did  not  sin  in  him,  and  do  not  derive  a 
corrupt  nature  from  him.  But,  if  we  were  in  him  as  to  essence 
then  his  sin  was  our  sin  both  as  to  guilt  and  pollution.  This  is  the 
argument  of  traducianists  repeated  in  every  form.  But  they  insist 
that  Christ  was  in  Adam  as  to  the  substance  of  his  human  nature 
as  truly  as  we  were.  Tiiey  say  that  if  his  body  and  soul  were  not 
derived  from  the  body  and  soul  of  his  virgin  mother  he  was  no  true 
man,  and  cannot  be  the  redeemer  of  men.  What  is  true  of  other 
men  must,  consequently,  be  true  of  Him.  He  must,  therefore,  be 
as  much  involved  in  the  guilt  and  corruption  of  the  apostasy  as 
other  men.  It  will  not  do  to  affirm  and  deny  the  same  thing.  It 
is  a  contradiction  to  say  that  we  are  guilty  of  Adam's  sin  because 
we  are  partakers  of  his  essence,  and  that  Christ  is  not  guilty  of 
his  sin  nor  involved  in  its  pollution,  although  He  is  a  partaker  of 
his  essence.  If  participation  of  essence  involve  community  of  guilt 
and  depravity  in  the  one  case,  it  must  also  in  the  other.  As  this 
seems  a  legitimate  conclusion  from  the  traducian  doctrine,  and  as 
this  conclusion  is  anti-Christian,  and  false,  the  doctrine  itself  cannot 
be  true. 

§  4.   Concluding  Remarks. 

Such  are  the  leading  arguments  on  both  sides  of  this  question. 
In  reference  to  this  discussion  it  may  be  remarked,  — 

1.  That  while  it  is  incumbent  on  us  strenuously  to  resist  any 
doctrine  which  assumes  the  divisibility,  and  consequent  materiality, 
of  the  human  soul,  or  which  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  human 


§4.]  CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  73 

natui'e  of  our  blessed  Lord  was  contaminated  with  sin,  yet  it  does 
not  become  us  to  be  wise  above  that  which  is  written.  We  may 
confess  that  generation,  the  production  of  a  new  individual  of  the 
human  race,  is  an  inscrutable  mystery.  But  this  must  be  said  of  the 
transmission  of  life  in  all  its  forms.  If  theologians  and  philosophers 
would  content  themselves  with  simply  denying  the  creation  of  the 
soul  ex  nihilo,  without  insisting  on  the  division  of  the  substance  of 
the  soul  or  the  identity  of  essence  in  all  human  beings,  the  evil 
would  not  be  so  great.  Some  do  attempt  to  be  thus  moderate,  and 
say,  with  Frohschammer,^  "  Gfenerare  is  nicht  ein  traducere,  sondern 
ein  secundares,  ein  creatUrliches  creare.'^  They  avail  themselves 
of  the  analogy  often  referred  to,  "  cum  flamma  accendit  flammara, 
neque  tota  flamma  accendens  transit  in  accensam  neque  pars  ejus  in 
eam  descendit :  ita  anima  parentum  generat  animam  filii,  ei  nihil  de- 
cedat."  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  in  this  view  the  theory 
loses  all  its  value  as  a  means  of  explaining  the  propagation  of  sin. 

2.  It  is  obviously  most  unreasonable  and  presumptuous,  as  well 
as  dangerous,  to  make  a  theory  as  to  the  origin  of  the  soul  the 
ground  of  a  doctrine  so  fundamental  to  the  Christian  system  as  that 
of  original  sin.  Yet  we  see  theologians,  ancient  and  modern,  boldly 
asserting  that  if  their  doctrine  of  derivation,  and  the  consequent 
numerical  sameness  of  substance  in  all  men,  be  not  admitted,  then 
original  sin  is  impossible.  That  is,  that  nothing  can  be  true,  no 
matter  how  plainly  taught  in  the  word  of  God,  which  they  cannot 
explain.  This  is  done  even  by  those  who  protest  against  introducing 
philosophy  into  theology,  utterly  unconscious,  as  it  would  seem, 
that  they  themselves  occupy,  quoad  hoc,  the  same  ground  with  the 
rationalists.  They  will  not  believe  in  hereditary  depravity  unless 
they  can  explain  the  mode  of  its  transmission.  There  can  be  nol  , 
such  thing,  they  say,  as  hereditary  depravity  unless  the  soul  of  the  \ 
child  is  the  same  numerical  substance  as  the  soul  of  the  parent.  ^ 
That  is,  the  plain  assertions  of  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  true  unless 
the  most  obscure,  unintelligible,  and  self-contradictory,  and  the 
least  generally  received  philosophical  theory  as  to  the  constitution 

of  man  and  the  propagation  of  the  race  be  adopted.  No  man  has 
a  right  to  hang  the  millstone  of  his  philosophy  around  the  neck  of 
the  truth  of  God. 

3.  There  is  a  third  cautionary  remark  which  must  not  be  omitted. 
The  whole  theory  of  traducianism  is  founded  on  the  assumption 
that  God,  since  the  original  creation,  operates  only  through  means. 
Since  the  "  sixth  day  the  Creator  has,  in  this  world,  exerted  no 

1   UtOtr  dtn  Urqjruiiy  Jtr  Seelen,  Muiiicli,  1854,  p.  82,  note  1. 


74  PART  n.   Ch.  m.  — origin  of  the  soul. 

strictly  creative  energy.  He  rested  from  the  work  of  creation 
upon  the  seventh  day,  and  still  rests."  ^  The  continued  creation 
of  souls  is  declared  by  Delitzsch  ^  to  be  inconsistent  with  God's 
relation  to  the  world.  He  now  produces  only  mediately,  i.  e., 
throu<>-h  the  operation  of  second  causes.  This  is  a  near  approach 
to  the  mechanical  theory  of  the  universe,  which  supposes  that  God, 
havino-  created  the  world  and  endowed  his  creatures  with  certain 
faculties  and  properties,  leaves  it  to  the  operation  of  these  second 
causes.  A  continued  superintendence  of  Providence  may  be 
admitted,  but  the  direct  exercise  of  the  divine  efficiency  is  denied. 
What,  then,  becomes  of  the  doctrine  of  regeneration?  The  new 
birth  is  not  the  effect  of  second  causes.  It  is  not  a  natural  effect 
produced  by  the  influence  of  the  truth  or  the  energy  of  the  human 
will.  It  is  due  to  the  immediate  exercise  of  the  almighty  power 
of  God.  God's  relation  to  the  world  is  not  that  of  a  mechanist 
to  a  machine,  nor  such  as  limits  Him  to  operating  only  through 
second  causes.  He  is  immanent  in  the  world.  He  sustains  and 
guides  all  causes.  He  works  constantly  through  them,  with  them, 
and  without  them.  As  in  the  operations  of  writing  or  speaking 
there  is  with  us  the  union  and  combined  action  of  mechanical, 
chemical,  and  vital  forces,  controlled  by  the  presiding  power  of 
mind  ;  and  as  the  mind,  while  thus  guiding  the  operations  of  the 
body,  constantly  exercises  its  creative  energy  of  thought,  so  God, 
as  immanent  in  the  world,  constantly  guides  all  the  operations  of 
second  causes,  and  at  the  same  time  exercises  uninteiTuptedly  his 
creative  energy.  Life  is  not  the  product  of  physical  causes.  We 
know  not  that  its  origin  is  in  any  case  due  to  any  cause  other  than 
the  immediate  power  of  God.  If  life  be  the  peculiar  attribute  of 
immaterial  substance,  it  may  be  produced  agreeably  to  a  fixed  plan 
by  the  creative  energy  of  God  whenever  the  conditions  are  present 
under  which  He  has  purposed  it  should  begin  to  be.  The  organi- 
zation of  a  seed,  or  of  the  embryo  of  an  animal,  so  far  as  it  consists 
of  matter,  may  be  due  to  the  operation  of  material  causes  guided 
by  the  providential  agency  of  God,  while  the  vital  principle  itself 
is  due  to  his  creative  power.  There  is  nothing  in  this  derogatory 
to  the  divine  character.  There  is  nothing  in  it  contrary  to  the 
Scriptures.  There  is  nothing  in  it  out  of  analogy  with  the  works 
and  working  of  God.  It  is  far  preferable  to  the  theory  which  either 
entirely  banishes  God  from  the  world,  or  restricts  his  operations  to 
SI  eoncursus  with  second  causes.     The  objection  to  creationism  that 

1  Shedd's  Hklory  of  Christian  Doctrine,  vol.  ii.  p.  13. 
'■'  Delitzsch's  Biblische  Psychohgie,  p.  79. 


§4.]  CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  75 

it  does  away  with  the  doctrine  of  miracles,  or  that  it  supposes  God 
to  sanction  every  act  with  which  his  creative  power  is  connected, 
does  not  seem  to  have  even  plausibility.  A  miracle  is  not  simply 
an  event  due  to  the  immediate  agency  of  God,  for  then  every  act 
of  conversion  would  be  a  miracle.  But  it  is  an  event,  occurring  in 
the  external  world,  which  involves  the  suspension  or  counteracting 
of  some  natural  law,  and  which  can  be  referred  to  nothing  but  tlie 
immediate  power  of  God.  The  origination  of  life,  therefore,  is 
neither  in  nature  nor  design  a  miracle,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
word.  This  exercise  of  God's  creative  energy,  in  connection  with 
the  agency  of  second  causes,  no  more  implies  approbation' than  the 
fact  that  He  gives  and  sustains  the  energy  of  the  murderer  proves 
that  He  sanctions  murder. 

4.  Finally  this  doctrine  of  traducianism  is  held  by  those  who 
contend  for  the  old  realistic  doctrine  that  humanity  is  a  generic 
substance  or  life.  The  two  theories,  however,  do  not  seem  to  har- 
monize, and  their  combination  produces  great  confusion  and  obscu- 
rity. According  to  the  one  theory  the  soul  of  the  child  is  derived 
from  the  soul  of  its  parents  ;  according  to  the  other  theory  there 
is  no  derivation.  One  magnet  is  not,  or  need  not  be  derived  from 
another  ;  one  Leyden  jar  is  not  derived  from  another  ;  nor  one 
galvanic  battery  from  another.  There  is  no  derivation  in  the  case. 
The  general  forces  of  magnetism,  electricity  and  galvanism,  are 
manifested  in  connection  with  given  material  combinations.  And 
if  a  man  be  the  manifestation  of  the  general  principle  of  humanity 
in  connection  with  a  given  human  body,  his  human  nature  is  not 
derived  from  his  immediate  progenitors. 

The  object  of  this  discussion  is  not  to  arrive  at  certainty  as  to 
what  is  not  clearly  revealed  in  Scripture,  nor  to  explain  what  is, 
on  all  sides,  admitted  to  be  inscrutable,  but  to  guard  against  the 
adoption  of  principles  which  are  in  opposition  to  plain  and  impor- 
tant doctrines  of  the  word  of  God.  If  traducianism  teaches  that 
the  soul  admits  of  abscission  or  division  ;  or  that  the  human  race 
are  constituted  of  numerically  the  same  substance  ;  or  that  the  Son 
of  God  assumed  into  personal  union  with  himself  the  same  numer- 
ical substance  which  sinned  and  fell  in  Adam  ;  then  it  is  to  be  re- 
jected as  both  false  and  dangerous.  But  if,  without  pretending  to 
explain  everything,  it  simply  asserts  that  the  human  race  is  propa- 
gated in  accordance  with  the  general  law  which  secures  that  like 
begets  like  ;  that  the  child  derives  its  nature  from  its  parents 
through  the  operation  of  physical  laws,  attended  and  controlled  by 
the  agency  of  God,  whether  directive  or  creative,  as  in  all  other 


76  PAKT  II.   Ch.  m.  — origin  of  the  soul. 

cases  of  the  propagation  of  living  creatures,  it  may  be  regarded 
as  an  open  question,  or  matter  of  indifference.  Creationism  does 
not  necessarily  suppose  that  there  is  any  other  exercise  of  the 
immediate  power  of  God  in  tiie  production  of  the  human  soul,  than 
such  as  takes  place  in  the  production  of  life  in  other  cases.  It 
only  denies  that  the  soul  is  capable  of  division,  that  all  mankind 
are  composed  of  numerically  the  same  essence  and  that  Christ 
assumed  numerically  the  same  essence  that  sinned  in  Adam. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

UNITY  OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE. 

There  is  still  another  question  which  science  has  forced  on 
theology,  in  relation  to  man,  which  cannot  be  overlooked.  Have 
all  mankind  had  a  common  origin  ?  and  have  they  a  common 
nature  ?  Are  they  all  descended  from  one  pair,  and  do  they 
constitute  one  species  ?  These  questions  are  answered  affirma- 
tively in  the  Bible  and  by  the  Church  universal.  They  are  an- 
swered in  the  negative  by  a  large  and  increasing  class  of  scientific 
men.  As  the  unity  of  the  race  is  not  only  asserted  in  the  Scrip- 
tures but  also  assumed  in  all  they  teach  concerning  the  apostasy 
and  redemption  of  man,  it  is  a  point  about  which  the  mind  of  the 
theologian  should  be  intelligently  convinced.  As  a  mere  theolo- 
gian he  may  be  authorized  to  rest  satisfied  with  the  declarations  of 
the  Bible  ;  but  as  a  defender  of  the  faith  he  should  be  able  to  give 
an  answer  to  those  who  oppose  themselves. 

There  are  two  points  involved  in  this  question :  community  of 
origin,  and  unity  of  species.  All  plants  and  animals  dei'ived  by- 
propagation  from  the  same  original  stock  are  of  the  same  species ; 
but  those  of  the  same  species  need  not  be  derived  from  a  common 
stock.  If  God  saw  fit  at  the  beginning,  or  at  any  time  since,  to 
create  plants  or  animals  of  the  same  kind  in  large  numbers  and  in 
different  parts  of  the  earth,  they  would  be  of  the  same  species  (or 
kind)  though  not  of  the  same  origin.  The  oaks  of  America  and 
those  of  Europe  are  identical  in  species,  even  although  not  derived* 
from  one  and  the  same  parent  oak.  It  may  be  admitted  that  the 
great  majority  of  plants  and  animals  were  originally  produced 
not  singly  or  in  pairs,  but  in  groups,  the  earth  bringing  forth  a 
multitude  of  individuals  of  the  same  kind.  It  is  therefore  in  itself 
possible  that  all  men  may  be  of  the  same  species,  although  not  all 
descended  from  Adam.  And  such  is  the  opinion  of  some  distin- 
guished naturalists.  The  Scriptural  doctrine,  however,  concernino- 
man  is,  that  the  race  is  not  only  the  same  in  kind  but  the  same  in 
origin.  They  are  all  the  children  of  a  common  parent,  and  have 
a  common  nature. 


78       PART  II.     Cii.  IV.  — UNION   OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE. 

§  1.  Meaning  of  the  Word,  or  the  Idea  of  Species. 
It  is  obviously  essential  to  any  intelligent  answer  to  the  question 
whether  all  the  varieties  of  men  are  of  one  species,  that  we  should 
be  able  to  tell  what  a  species  is.  This  is  a  point  of  very  great  dif- 
ficulty. Naturalists  not  only  differ  in  their  definitions  of  the  term, 
but  they  differ  greatly  in  classification.  Some  assume  a  spot  on 
the  wing  of  a  butterfly,  or  a  slight  diversity  of  plumage  in  a  bird, 
as  proof  of  difference  of  species.  Some  therefore  divide  into  six 
or  eight  species  what  others  comprehend  in  one.  Nothing  there- 
fore can  be  done  until  men  come  to  a  common  understanding  on 
this  subject,  and  the  true  idea  of  species  be  determined  and  au- 
thenticated. 

General  Characteristics  of  Species. 

Before  considering  the  various  definitions  of  the  term,  it  is 
proper  to  remark  that  there  are  certain  characteristics  of  species 
which  at  least,  until  of  late,  have  been  generally  recognized  and 
admitted.  (1.)  Originality,  i.  e.,  they  owe  their  existence  and 
character  to  immediate  creation.  They  are  not  produced  by  i)hys- 
ical  causes,  nor  are  they  ever  derived  from  other  genera  or  species. 
They  are  original  forms.  This  is  admitted  by  naturalists  of  all 
classes.  Such  is  the  doctrine  of  Cuvier,  Agassiz,  Dr.  Morton,  and 
of  those  who  hold  that  the  varieties  of  the  human  race  are  so 
many  distinct  species.  They  mean  by  this  that  they  had  different 
origins,  and  are  not  all  derived  fuom  a  common  stock.  Every 
species  therefore,  by  general  consent,  has  had  a  single  origin. 
(2.)  Universality,  i.  e.,  all  the  individuals  and  varieties  belonging 
to  the  same  species  have  all  its  essential  characteristics.  Wherever 
you  find  the  teeth  of  a  carnivorous  animal,  you  find  a  stomach  able 
to  digest  animal  food,  and  claws  adapted  to  seize  and  hold  prey. 
Wherever  you  find  fins  to  effect  motion  in  water,  you  find  a 
breathing  apparatus  suited  to  the  same  element.  The  species  is 
transmitted  whole  and  entire.  It  is  the  same  in  all  individuals  be- 
longing to  it,  and  in  that  sense  universal.  (3.)  Immutability,  or 
permanence.  By  this  is  meant  first,  that  one  species  is  never  lost 
or  merged  in  another  ;  and  secondly,  that  two  or  more  species 
never  combine  so  as  to  produce  a  third.  The  rose  cannot  be 
merged  into  the  tulip  ;  nor  can  the  rose  and  tulip  be  made  to 
produce  a  new  species,  which  is  neither  the  one  nor  the  other. 
The  only  permanent  transmissible  forms  of  organic  life,  are  such 
as  constitute    distinct   species.      Immutability,    therefore,    or   the 


§l.J  MEANING  OF   THE  WORD   SPECIES.  79 

power  to  perpetuate  itself,  is  one  of  the  indispejisable  character- 
istics of  species.  This,  until  recently,  has  been  the  universally 
admitted  doctrine  of  naturalists.  And  notwithstanding  the  efforts 
of  the  advocates  of  the  different  theories  of  development,  it  still 
remains  the  general  faith  of  the  scientific  world.  The  leading 
arguments  in  support  of  this  doctrine  have  already  been  adverted 
to,  when  speaking  of  the  theory  of  Mr.  Darwin  on  the  origin  of 
species.  Those  arguments  are  briefly  the  following.  (1.)  The 
historical  fact  that  all  known  species  of  plants  and  animals  are 
now  precisely  what  they  were  as  far  back  as  history  reaches. 
The  Bible  and  the  records  on  the  Egyptian  monuments  carry 
us  back  to  a  point  thousands  of  years  before  the  birth  of  Christ. 
During  this  whole  period  of  five  or  six  thousand  years  species 
have  remained  the  same.  (2.)  If  we  are  to  receive  the  facts 
of  geology  as  authenticated,  it  is  clear  that  the  same  permanence 
has  existed  from  the  very  beginning  of  life  on  our  globe.  As 
long  as  any  species  exists  at  all,  it  exists  unchanged  in  all  that 
is  essential  to  it.  (3.)  There  is  an  entire  and  acknowledged 
absence  of  all  evidence  of  transmutation  ;  none  of  the  transition 
points  or  links  of  connection  between  one  species  and  another  is 
anywhere  discoverable.  (4.)  If  species  were  not  thus  immutable 
the  animal  and  vegetable  world  instead  of  presenting  the  beautiful 
order  everywhere  visible,  would  exhibit  a  perfect  chaos  of  all  or- 
ganic life.  (5.)  Notwithstanding  the  ingenious  and  long  contin- 
ued efforts  to  render  hybrids  prolific,  such  attempts  have  uniformly 
failed.  The  two  greatest  living  authorities  on  this  subject  are  Dr. 
Bachman  of  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  and  IM.  Flourens  of  the 
Jardin  des  Plantes  in  Paris.  "  Either  hybrids,"  says  the  latter, 
"  born  of  the  union  of  two  distinct  species,  unite  and  soon  become 
sterile,  or  they  unite  with  one  of  the  parent  stocks  and  soon  return 
to  this  type  —  they  in  no  case  give  what  may  be  called  a  new 
species,  that  is  to  say,  an  intermediate  durable  species."  "  Les 
especes  ne  s'alterent  point,  ne  changent  point,  ne  passent  point  de 
Tune  a  I'autre  ;  les  especes  sont  Fixes."  ^  There  is  no  natural 
law  better  authenticated  or  more  generally  admitted  than  that 
species  are  immutable  and  capable  of  indefinite  propagation. 

Definitions  of  Species. 

No  group  of  animals  therefore  can  be  regarded  as  a  distinct  spe- 
cies which  has  not  existed  as  distinct  from  the  beginning,  and  Avhich 
is  not  immutable  in  its  essential  characteristics,  and  which  is  not 

1  De  la  Lonyeviie  flumniie,  etc.,  par  P.  Flourens,  Paris,  1855. 


80        PART  11.     Ch.   IV.  — unity   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE. 

capable  of  propagating  itself  indefinitely.  These  are  important 
landmarks,  but  they  are  not  sufficient  to  guide  us  in  all  cases  to  a 
satisfactory  conclusion  as  to  whether  given  individuals  or  varieties 
are  of  the  same  or  of  different  species.  (1.)  Because  the  origin  of 
these  varieties  cannot  be  historically  traced.  The  Caucasian  and 
the  negro  have  existed  with  their  present  distinguishing  character- 
istics for  several  thousands  of  years.  But  this  does  not  prove  that 
they  differed  from  the  beginning.  (2.)  Because  certain  varieties 
of  the  same  species  when  once  established  become  permanent,  and 
are  capable  of  indefinite  continuance.  Several  varieties  of  dogs 
depicted  on  the  Egyptian  monuments  centuries  before  Christ,  are 
precisely  what  now  exist.  Naturalists  therefore  have  sought  for 
some  precise  definition  of  species,  although  these  attempts  have  not 
been  generally  successful.  Cuvier  says  :  "  We  are  under  the 
necessity  of  admitting  the  existence  of  certain  forms  which  have 
perpetuated  themselves  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  without 
exceeding  the  limits  first  px-escribed  ;  all  the  individuals  belonging 
to  one  of  these  forms  constitute  what  is  termed  a  species."  De 
Candolle  sa3^s  :  "  We  write  under  the  designation  of  species  all 
those  individuals  who  mutually  bear  such  close  resemblance  to  each 
other  as  admits  of  our  supposing  they  have  arisen  from  a  single 
pair."  Agassiz  ^  says :  "  Species  is  founded  upon  less  important 
distinctions,  such  as  color,  size,  proportions,  sculpture,  etc."  The 
objections  to  these  definitions  are,  (1.)  That  they  do  not  enable  us 
to  distinguish  between  species  and  varieties.  (2.)  They  refer  almost 
exclusively  to  what  is  external  or  material,  colour,  size,  proportion, 
etc.,  as  the  criteria,  to  the  neglect  of  the  higher  constituents  of  the 
animal.  Dr.  Prichard  says,  that  under  the  term  species  are  in- 
cluded all  those  animals  which  are  supposed  to  have  arisen  in  the 
first  instance  from  a  single  pair.  And  to  the  same  effect  Dr.  Car- 
penter says  :  "  When  it  can  be  shown  that  two  races  have  had  a 
separate  origin,  they  are  regarded  as  of  different  species  ;  and,  in 
the  absence  of  proof,  this  is  inferred  when  we  find  some  peculiar- 
ity of  organization  characteristic  of  each,  so  constantly  transmitted 
from  parent  to  offspring,  that  the  one  cannot  be  supposed  to  have 
lost,  or  the  other  to  have  acquired  it,  through  any  known  operation 
of  physical  causes."  The  objection  to  this  view  of  the  matter  is 
that  it  makes  community  of  origin,  either  proved  or  inferred,  the 
criterion  of  sameness  of  species.  But,  in  the  first  place,  this  com- 
munity of  origin  cannot  in  a  multitude  of  cases  be  established ;  and 
in  the  case  of  man,  it  is  the  very  thing  to  be  proved.     The  great 

1  Principles  of  Zoology,  p.  xir. 


^1.]  MEANING   OF   THE   WORD    SPECIES.  81 

question  is,  are  Mongolians,  Africans,  and  Caucasians  all  derived 
from  a  common  parent  ?  And  in  the  second  place,  although  com- 
munity of  origin  would  prove  identity  of  species,  diversity  of  origin 
would  not  prove  diversity  of  species.  All  the  varieties  of  the 
horse  and  dog  would  constitute  one  species  for  each  class,  although 
they  had  been  created  as  they  now  are.  Species  means  kind,  and 
if  two  animals  are  of  the  same  kind  they  are  of  the  same  species, 
no  matter  what  their  origin  may  have  been.  Had  God  created  one 
pair  of  lions  in  Asia,  another  in  North  Africa,  another  in  Senegal, 
they  would  all  belong  to  one  species.  Their  identity  of  kind 
would  be  precisely  the  same  as  though  all  were  descended  from 
one  pair.  Dr.  Morton's  definition  of  species  as  "  a  primordial  or- 
ganic form,"  has  obtained  general  acceptance.  It  is,  however, 
liable  to  objection  on  the  ground  of  the  ambiguity  of  the  word/brw. 
If  by  "  form  "  be  understood  external  structure,  the  definition  is 
unsatisfactory  ;  if  we  understand  the  word  in  its  scholastic  sense 
of  essential  and  formative  principle,  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing 
which  is  more  distinctly  expressed  in  other  terms.  Agassiz  gives 
another  and  much  more  satisfactory  idea  of  the  nature  of  species, 
when  he  refers  to  an  immaterial  principle  as  its  essential  element, 
and  that  to  which  the  sameness  of  the  individuals  and  varieties 
embraced  within  it  is  to  be  referred.^  He  says :  "  Besides  the  dis- 
tinctions to  be  derived  from  the  varied  structure  of  organs,  there 
are  others  less  subject  to  rigid  analysis,  but  no  less  decisive,  to  be 
drawn  from  the  immaterial  principle,  with  which  every  animal  is 
endowed.  It  is  this  which  determines  the  constancy  of  species 
from  generation  to  generation,  and  which  is  the  source  of  all  the 
varied  exhibitions  of  instinct  and  intelligence  which  we  see  dis- 
played, from  the  simple  impulse  to  receive  the  food  which  is 
brought  within  their  reach,  as  observed  in  the  polyps,  through  the 
higher  manifestations,  in  the  cunning  fox,  the  sagacious  elephant, 
the  faithful  dog,  and  the  exalted  intellect  of  man,  which  is  capa- 
ble of  indefinite  expansion."  Again,  he  says  :  ^  "The  constancy 
of  species  is  a  phenomenon  dependent  on  the  immaterial  nature." 
"  All  animals,"  he  says,  "  may  be  traced  back  in  the  embryo  to  a 
mere  point  upon  the  yolk  of  an  egg,  bearing  no  resemblance  what- 
ever to  the  future  animal.  But  even  here  an  immaterial  principle 
which  no  external  influence  can  prevent  or  modify,  is  present,  and 
determines  its  future  form  ;  so  that  the  egg  of  a  hen  can  produce 
only  a  chicken,  and  the  egg  of  a  codfish  only  a  cod."  Professor 
Dana  says  :  ^  "  The  units  of  the  inorganic  world  are  the  weighed 

1  Principles  of  Zoology,  p.  9.  2  JUd,  p.  43.  8  Bihliotheca  Sacra,  1857,  d-  863. 

VOL.   II.  6 


82       PART  II.     Ch.   IV.  — unity   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE. 

elements  and  tlieir  definite  compounds  or  their  molecules.  The 
units  of  the  organic  are  species,  which  exhibit  themselves  in  their 
simplest  condition  in  the  germ-cell  state.  The  kingdoms  of  life  in 
all  their  magnificent  proportions  are  made  from  these  units." 
Again, ^  "  When  individuals  multiply  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion, it  is  but  a  repetition  of  the  primordial  type-idea  ;  and  the  true 
notion  of  the  species  is  not  in  the  resulting  group,  but  in  the  idea 
or  potential  element  which  is  at  the  basis  of  every  individual  of  the 
group."  Here  we  reach  solid  ground.  Unity  of  species  does 
not  consist  in  unity  or  sameness  of  organic  structure,  in  sameness 
as  to  size,  colour,  or  anything  merely  external ;  but  in  the  sameness 
of  the  immaterial  principle,  or  "  potential  idea,"  which  constitutes 
and  determines  the  sameness  of  nature.  In  the  initial  point  on  the 
yolk  of  the  egg,  there  is  no  difference  of  form,  no  difference  discerni- 
ble by  the  microscope,  or  discoverable  by  chemical  analysis,  between 
one  crerm  and  another ;  betw^een  the  initial  cell  of  the  bird  and  that 
of  the  fish.  And  yet  the  whole  difference  is  there.  The  differ- 
ence, therefore,  cannot  exist  in  what  is  external  (although  within 
certain  limits  and  in  further  development  it  is  manifested  exter- 
nally), but  in  what  is  immaterial.  So  that  where  the  immaterial 
principle  of  Agassiz,  or  the  potential  idea  of  Dana,  is  the  same, 
the  species  is  the  same  ;  where  the  immaterial  principle  is  different, 
the  species  is  different. 

§  2.  Evidence  of  Identity  of  Species. 

Such  being  the  case,  the  only  question  is,  how  can  we  deter- 
mine whether  the  immaterial  principle  which  constitutes  and  deter- 
mines the  species,  be  the  same  or  different.  Aside  from  divine 
revelation,  this  can  be  ascertained  :  (1.)  Partly  from  the  organic 
structure.  (2.)  Partly  from  the  <^vo-ts,  or  physical  nature.  (3.) 
Partly  from  the  i/'^x^/,  or  psychological  nature.  (4.)  Partly  from 
permanence  and  capability  of  indefinite  propagation. 

Organic  Structure. 

The  first  evidence  of  the  identity  of  species  is  to  be  sought  in  the 
o-w/xa,  or  the  organic  structure.  The  evidence  of  design  is  impressed 
upon  all  the  organized  bodies  in  the  universe,  and  especially  upon 
the  bodies  of  all  animals.  Those  intended  to  live  on  the  dry 
ground,  those  intended  to  live  in  water,  and  those  intended  to 
fly  in  the  aii',  have  their  animal  frame  adapted  to  these  several 
modes  or  conditions  of  existence.     There  is  also  clear  evidence  of 

1  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  1857,  p.  861. 


§  2.]  EVIDENCE   OF   IDENTITY   OF   SPECIES.  83 

the  unity  of  this  design.  That  is,  it  is  carried  out  in  all  parts  of 
the  bodily  organization.  Those  animals  intended  to  live  on  dry 
ground  have  none  of  the  structure,  or  organs,  or  members  pecu- 
liarly suited  to  aquatic  animals.  The  Hon,  tiger,  ox,  horse,  etc.,  have 
neither  the  gills,  the  scales,  the  fins,  nor  the  rudder-like  tail  of  the 
fish.  All  parts  of  the  animal  harmonize.  They  are  all  related  and 
adapted  to  one  and  the  same  end.  The  body  of  the  fish  is  shaped 
so  as  to  cleave  the  water  with  the  least  resistance  ;  its  fins  are 
oars,  its  tail  is  adapted  both  for  propulsion  and  guidance ;  its 
breathing  apparatus  is  suited  to  separate  the  air  from  water ;  its 
digestive  organs  are  adapted  to  the  assimilation  of  the  kind  of  food 
furnished  by  the  element  in  which  it  lives.  The  same  thing  is  ob- 
viously true  of  all  terrestrial  animals.  Besides  this  general  adapta- 
tion of  animals  for  living  in  the  air,  in  the  water,  and  on  the  dry 
ground,  there  are  innumerable  more  specific  adaptations  suiting 
the  species  of  fishes,  birds,  and  land  animals  for  the  particular 
modes  of  life  for  which  they  are  designed.  Some  are  intended  to 
be  carnivorous,  and  their  bodies  are  harmoniously  constructed  with 
a  view  to  that  end.  Others  are  intended  to  live  on  herbs,  and  in 
them  we  find  everything  adapted  for  that  purpose.  This  adapta- 
tion refers  to  numerous  and  varied  purposes.  Hence  the  genera 
and  the  species  of  animals  belonging  to  the  different  departments, 
classes,  orders,  and  families  into  which  the  animal  kingdom  is  di- 
vided, are  exceedingly  numerous,  and  each  has  its  distinctive  cor- 
poreal organization  indicative  of  the  specific  end  it  is  intended 
to  subserve.  So  minute,  and  so  fixed  is  the  plan  on  which  each 
species  of  animal  is  constructed,  that  a  skilful  naturalist,  from  the 
examination  of  a  single  bone,  can  tell  not  only  the  family,  or  genus, 
but  the  very  species  to  which  it  belongs.  Agassiz  has,  from  a 
single  scale  of  a  fish,  delineated  its  whole  body  as  accurately  as 
though  the  living  animal  had  been  photographed.  And  the  cor- 
rectness of  his  delineation  has  been  afterwards  verified  by  the  dis- 
covery of  a  perfect  specimen  of  the  species  portrayed.  Now,  the 
important  principle  deducible  from  these  admitted  facts  is,  that  no 
diversity  of  colour,  form,  proportion,  structure,  etc.,  not  indicative 
of  design,  or  not  proving  a  difference  in  the  immaterial  principle 
which  determines  the  nature  of  the  animal,  can  of  itself  be  admitted 
as  proof  of  diversity  of  species.  The  Italian  greyhound  and  the 
English  mastiff  differ  in  all  the  respects  just  mentioned.  The  Siiet- 
land  pony,  the  London  dray-horse,  and  the  Arabian  or  the  Barb 
exhibit  similar  striking  diversities.  But  when  they  come  to  be 
anatomically  examined,  it  is  found  that  they  are  constructed  on  the 


84     PART  n.   Ch.  IV. -unity  of  the  human  race. 

same  plan.  The  bony  structures,  the  distribution  of  the  nerves, 
muscles,  and  blood-vessels,  are  all  expressive  of  the  same  general 
intention.  Hence,  naturalists  refer  these  varieties  to  the  same  spe- 
cies. And  the  correctness  of  this  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  every 
other  criterion  of  the  identity  of  species.  While  it  is  admitted  that 
such  diversities  do  exist  in  the  varieties  belonging  to  the  same  spe- 
cies of  the  lower  animals,  it  is  surprising  that  far  less  diversities  of 
the  same  kind  among  the  varieties  of  the  human  family  should  be 
insisted  upon,  as  evidence  of  difference  of  species.  The  wild  dog 
wherever  found  is  nearly  of  the  same  colour,  and  the  same  size, 
with  ears,  limbs  and  tail  of  the  same  form,  and  yet  how  endless  are 
the  permanent  varieties  derived  from  that  original  stock.  It  is 
well  known  that  such  varieties  can  be  artificially  produced.  By 
skilful  breeding  almost  any  peculiarit}'  of  form,  colour,  or  struc- 
ture within  the  limits  of  the  original  idea  of  the  species,  can  be 
produced  and  perpetuated  ;  as  is  seen  in  the  different  breeds  of 
horses,  cattle,  and  sheep  found  even  in  so  restricted  a  field  of  oper- 
ation as  Great  Britain.  It  is  certain,  therefore,  that  no  diversity 
of  an  external  or  material  character,  not  indicative  of  diversity  of 
design,  plan,  and  intention  can  properly  be  assumed  as  indicative 
of  diversity  of  species.  The  presence  of  a  skin  connecting  the  toes 
or  claws  of  a  bird,  is  in  itself  a  comparatively  small  affair.  It  is 
insignificant  as  to  the  amount  of  material  expended,  and  as  to  the 
effect  on  the  general  appearance  compared  to  the  points  of  differ- 
ence between  the  greyhound  and  the  mastiff,  and  yet  it  is  indica- 
tive of  design.  It  indicates  that  the  animal  is  intended  to  live  in 
the  water ;  and  everything  else  in  its  structure  and  nature  is  found 
to  correspond  with  that  intention.  A  small  difference  of  structure 
indicative  of  design  will  prove  difference  of  species,  when  much 
greater  differences  not  thus  indicative  are  perfectly  consistent  with 
unity  of  species. 

Physiological  Argumeiit. 

The  second  method  of  determining  the  identity  of  the  imma- 
terial principle  in  which  the  idea  of  species  resides,  is  the  exami- 
nation of  its  ^ucris,  or  its  physiology.  To  this  department  belongs 
all  that  relates  to  enervation  or  the  distribution  of  the  nerve 
power  ;  to  the  circulation  of  the  blood  ;  to  respiration  ;  to  calorifi- 
cation or  production  of  animal  heat ;  to  the  distribution  of  the  mus- 
cles voluntary  and  involuntary  ;  to  the  processes  of  digestion,  assim- 
ilation, propagation,  etc.,  etc.  As  to  this  point  it  is  to  be  observed, 
CI .)  That  the  <^u(ns,  or  animal  nature,  is  always  in  accordance  with 


§  2.]  EVIDENCE   OF   IDENTITY   OF    SPECIES.  86 

the  o-w/Att,  or  corporeal  structure.  We  never  find  tlie  organs  of  an 
aquatic  animal  with  the  </>v<ns  of  a  land  animal.  Everything  relat- 
ing to  the  physiology  of  the  animal  is  in  harmony  with  its  corpo- 
real organization.  (2.)  That  where  in  all  respects  the  physical 
nature  of  individuals  or  varieties  is  the  same,  there  the  species  is 
the  same  ;  where  the  <^ucrts  is  different,  the  species  is  different. 
(3.)  That  the  physiolog}'  of  an  animal  is  thus  as  easily  ascertained, 
and  is  just  as  uniform  and  fixed,  as  its  material  structure,  and  in 
fact  much  more  so.  The  material  structure  may,  and  as  we  have 
seen  does,  diflfer  exceedingly  in  the  different  varieties  included 
under  the  same  species,  but  the  <^vo-is  is  always  the  same.  The 
physiology  of  the  greyhound  is  identical  with  that  of  the  mastiff; 
and  that  of  the  Shetland  pony  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  Lon- 
don dray-horse. 

Psychological  Argument. 

The  third  criterion  of  the  identity  of  species  is  to  be  sought 
in  the  ^vxri^  or  the  psychological  nature  of  the  animal.  The  </'i^x'7 
is  the  immaterial  principle  which  belongs  to  all  animals,  and  is  the 
same  in  kind  in  every  distinct  species.  It  is  that  in  which  the  life 
resides  ;  which  is  the  seat  of  the  instincts,  and  of  that  measure  of 
intelligence,  be  it  greater  or  less,  which  belongs  to  the  animal. 
The  ^vx^  is  the  same  in  all  the  individuals  of  the  same  species,  and 
it  is  permanent.  The  instincts  and  habits  of  the  bee,  the  wasp,  the 
ant,  and  the  beaver;  of  the  lion,  tiger,  wolf,  fox,  horse,  dog,  and  ox; 
and  of  all  the  endless  diversities  of  beasts,  birds,  fishes,  and  insects, 
are  the  same  in  all  ages  and  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  This  im- 
material principle  is  of  a  higher  order  in  some  cases  than  in  others, 
and  admits  of  greater  or  less  degrees  of  culture,  as  seen  in  the 
trained  elephant  or  well-disciplined  pointer.  But  the  main  thing 
is  that  each  species  has  its  own  ^^x^i  and  that  this  is  a  higher 
element  and  more  decisive  evidence  of  identity  than  the  corporeal 
structure  or  even  the  <;ti;o-is,  or  animal  nature.  Where  these  three 
criteria  concur,  where  the  corporeal  organization,  in  everything 
indicative  of  design,  is  the  same ;  where  the  <^i;W  and  the  ^vxq,  the 
physical  and  psychological  natures,  are  the  same,  there,  beyond  all 
reasonable  doubt,  the  species  is  the  same. 

The  fourth  criterion  of  species  is  found  not  only  in  its  perma 
nence  but  in  the  capacity  of  procreation  and  indefinite  propagation 
which  belongs  to  all  the  individuals  and  varieties  which  it  includes. 
Animals  of  the  same  species  can  propagate  their  kind.  Animals  of 
different  species  cannot  combine  and  perpetuate  a  new  or  mongi'el 


86       PAKT  n.     Cii.  IV.  — UNITY   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE. 

species.  This  as  we  have  seen  is  an  admitted  fact  among  all  classes 
of  naturalists,  a  few  individuals  excepted.  It  is  a  fact  patent  to  all 
mankind  and  verified  by  the  experience  of  all  ages. 

§  3.     Application  of  these  Criteria  to  Man. 

When  we  come  to  apply  these  several  criteria  to  the  human 
race,  it  is  found  beyond  dispute  that  they  all  concur  in  proving 
that  the  whole  human  family  are  of  one  and  the  same  species. 
In  the  first  place  the  corporeal  frame  or  external  structure  is 
the  same  in  all  the  varieties  of  the  race.  There  is  the  same  num- 
ber of  bones  in  the  skeleton  ;  their  arrangement  and  disposition 
are  the  same.  There  is  the  same  distribution  of  the  blood-vessels. 
The  brain,  the  spinal  marrow,  and  the  nervous  system  are  the 
same  in  all.  They  all  have  the  same  muscles  amounting  to  many 
thousand  in  number.  The  organs  for  breathing,  respiration,  diges- 
tion, secretion,  and  assimilation,  are  the  same  in  all.  There  are 
indeed  indefinite  diversities  in  size,  complexion,  and  character,  and 
colour  of  the  hair,  within  the  same  variety  of  the  race,  and  be- 
tween the  varieties  themselves.  Some  of  these  diversities  are 
variable,  and  some  are  fixed.  The  Caucasian,  the  Mongolian,  the 
African,  have  each  their  peculiarities  by  which  the  one  is  easily 
distinguished  from  the  other,  and  which  descend  from  generation 
to  generation  without  alteration.  With  regard  to  these  peculiari- 
ties, however,  it  is  to  be  remarked,  first,  that  they  are  less  im- 
portant and  less  conspicuous  than  those  which  distinguish  the 
different  varieties  of  domestic  animals  all  belonging  to  the  same 
species.  No  two  men,  or  no  men  of  different  races,  differ  from 
each  other  so  much  as  the  little  Italian  greyhound  and  the  power- 
ful mastiff  or  bull-dog.  And  secondly,  none  of  these  peculiarities 
are  indicative  of  difference  of  design,  or  plan,  and  therefore  they 
are  not  indicative  of  difference  in  the  immaterial  principle,  which 
according  to  the  naturalists  of  the  highest  class,  determines  the 
identity  of  species  and  secures  its  permanence.  And  thirdly,  these 
peculiarities  are  all  referrible  to  the  differences  of  climate,  diet,  and 
mode  of  life,  and  to  the  effect  of  propagation  in  case  of  acquired 
peculiarities.  The  truth  of  this  last  statement  as  to  the  influence 
of  these  several  causes  in  modifying  and  perpetuating  varieties  in 
the  same  species,  is  abundantly  illustrated  and  confirmed  in  the 
case  of  all  the  lower  animals.  Such  is  the  sameness  of  all  the 
varieties  of  mankind  as  to  their  corporeal  structure,  that  a  system 
of  anatomy  written  in  Europe  and  founded  on  the  examination  of 
the  bodies  of  Europeans  exclusively,  would  be  as  applicable  in 
Asia,  Africa,  America,  and  Australia,  as  in  Europe  itself. 


§3.]  APPLICATION   OF   THESE   CRITERIA   TO   MAN.  87 

The  second  criterion  of  sameness  of  species  is  to  be  sought  in 
the  <^uo-(.s,  or  physical  nature.  In  this  respect  also  all  mankind  are 
found  to  agree,  so  that  the  physiology  of  the  Caucasian,  Mongo- 
lian, and  African  is  precisely  the  same.  The  laws  which  regulate 
the  vital  processes  are  the  same  in  all ;  respiration,  digestion,  secre- 
tion, and  propagation,  are  all  conducted  in  the  same  way  in  every 
variety  of  the  species. 

The  third  criterion  is  found  in  the  ij/vxn  or  psychological  nature. 
This,  as  we  have  seen,  is  the  highest  test,  for  the  i/'^x^  or  imma- 
tei'ial  principle  is  the  most  important  element  in  the  constitution  of 
every  living  creature.  Where  that  is  the  same,  the  species  is  the 
same.  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  souls  of  all  men 
are  essentially  the  same.  They  not  only  have  in  common  all  the 
appetites,  instincts,  and  passions,  which  belong  to  the  souls  of  the 
lower  animals,  but  they  all  share  in  those  higher  attributes  which 
belong  exclusively  to  man.  They  all  are  endowed  with  reason, 
conscience,  and  free  agency.  They  all  have  the  same  constitu- 
tional principles  and  affections.  They  all  stand  in  the  same  rela- 
tion to  God  as  spirits  possessing  a  moral  and  religious  nature. 

The  fourth  criterion  is  permanence,  and  the  ability  of  indefinite 
propagation.  We  have  seen  that  it  is  a  law  of  nature,  recognized 
by  all  naturalists  (with  a  few  recent  exceptions),  that  animals  of 
different  species  do  not  cohabit,  and  cannot  propagate.  Where  the 
species  are  nearly  allied,  as  the  horse  and  the  ass,  they  may  pro- 
duce offspring  combining  the  peculiarities  of  both  parents.  But 
there  the  process  stops.  Mules  cannot  continue  the  mongrel 
race.  It  is  however  an  admitted  fact  that  men  of  eveiy  race, 
Caucasian,  Mongolian,  and  African,  can  thus  cohabit,  and  their 
offspi'ing  can  be  indefinitely  propagated  and  combined.  "  Were 
these  units  [species],"  says  Professor  Dana,^  "capable  of  blending 
with  one  another  indefinitely,  they  would  no  longer  be  units,  and 
species  could  not  be  recognized.  The  system  of  life  would  be  a 
maze  of  complexities  ;  and  whatever  its  grandeur  to  a  being  that 
could  comprehend  the  infinite,  it  would  be  unintelligible  chaos  to 
man.  ...  It  would  be  to  man  the  temple  of  nature  fused  over 
its  whole  surface,  and  through  its  structure,  without  a  line  the 
mind  could  measure  or  comprehend."  As  therefore  the  universe  is 
constructed  on  a  definite  plan,  as  its  laws  are  uniform  ;  as  the  con- 
stituent elements  of  the  material  world  are  permanent,  it  would 
be  in  strange  contradiction  with  this  universal  analogy,  if  in  the 
highest  department  of  nature,  in   the  organic  and  living  world, 

1  Bibliotkeca  Sacra,  1857,  p.  863. 


88     PART  n.  ch.  IV.  — unity  of  the  human  race. 

everything  should  be  unstable,  that  species  could  mingle  with 
species,  and  chaos  take  the  place  of  order  and  uniformity.  As 
therefore  the  different  varieties  of  men  freely  unite  and  produce 
offspring  permanently  prolific,  all  those  varieties  must  belong  to 
one  and  the  same  species,  or  one  of  the  most  fixed  of  the  laws  of 
nature,  is  in  their  case  reversed. 

The  Evidence  of  Identity  of  Race  Cumulative. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  strength  of  this  argument  for  the 
unity  of  the  human  race  does  not  depend  upon  anj^  one  of  the  above 
mentioned  particulars  separately.  It  is  rather  in  their  combina- 
tion that  the  power  of  the  argument  lies.  It  is  not  simply  because 
the  corporeal  structure  is  essentially  the  same  in  all  men  ;  nor 
simply  because  they  have  all  the  same  physical,  or  the  same  psy- 
chological nature  ;  or  that  they  are  capable  of  producing  perma- 
nently prolific  offspring  ;  but  because  all  these  particulars  are  true 
in  respect  to  the  whole  human  family  wherever  found  and  through 
the  whole  course  of  its  history.  It  becomes  a  mere  matter  of 
logomachy  to  dispute  whether  men  are  of  the  same  species,  if  they 
have  the  same  material  organism,  the  same  <^vo-ts  and  the  same 
^Xn-  Whether  of  the  same  species  or  not,  if  these  things  be 
admitted  which  cannot  be  rationally  denied,  they  are  of  the  same 
nature,  they  are  beings  of  the  same  kind.  Naturalists  may  give 
what  meaning  they  please  to  the  word  species.  This  cannot  alter 
the  facts  of  the  case.  All  men  are  of  the  same  blood,  of  the  same 
race,  of  the  same  order  of  creation. 

"  That  the  races  of  men,  "says  Delitzsch,"  are  not  species  of  one 
genus,  but  varieties  of  one  species,  is  confirmed  by  the  agreement 
in  the  psychological  and  pathological  phenomena  in  them  all,  by 
similarity  in  the  anatomical  structure,  in  the  fundamental  powers 
and  traits  of  the  mind,  in  the  limits  to  the  duration  of  life,  in  the 
normal  temperature  of  the  body  and  the  average  rate  of  pulsation, 
in  the  duration  of  pregnancy,  and  in  the  unrestricted  fruitfulness 
of  marriao-es  between  the  various  races."  ^ 

o 

§  4.  Philological  and  Moral  Evidence. 
Besides  the  arguments  above  mentioned,  which  are  all  of  a 
zoological  character,  there  are  others,  not  less  conclusive,  of  a 
different  kind.  It  is  one  of  the  infelicities  which  has  attended 
this  controversy,  that  it  has  been  left  too  much  in  the  hands  of 
naturalists,  of  men  trained  to  the  consideration  almost  exclusively 

1  Commentary  on  Genesis. 


§  4.]  PHILOLOGICAL   AND  MORAL  EVIDENCE.  89 

of  what  is  material,  or  at  most  of  what  falls  within  the  department 
of  natural  life.  They  thus  become  one-sided,  and  fail  to  take  in 
all  the  aspects  of  the  case,  or  to  estimate  duly  all  the  data  which 
enter  into  the  solution  of  tlie  problem.  Tims  Agassiz  ignores  all 
the  facts  connected  with  the  languages,  with  the  history,  and  with 
the  mental,  moral,  and  religious  character  and  condition  of  man. 
He  therefore  comes  to  conclusions  which  a  due  consideration  of 
those  data  would  have  rendered  impossible. 

The  science  o^  comparative  philology,  is  founded  on  laws  which 
are  as  certain  an^t  as  authoritative  as  the  laws  of  nature.  Language 
is  not  a  fortuitous  production.  It  is  essentially  different  from  in- 
stinctive cries,  or  inarticulate  sounds.  It  is  a  production  of  the 
mind,  exceedingly  complex  and  subtle.  It  is  impossible  that  races, 
entirely  distinct,  should  have  the  same  language.  It  is  absolutely 
certain  from  the  character  of  the  French,  Spanish,  and  Italian  lan- 
guages, that  those  nations  are,  in  large  measure,  the  common  de- 
scendants of  the  Latin  race.  When  therefore  it  can  be  shown  that 
the  languages  of  different  races  or  varieties  of  men  are  radically  the 
same,  or  derived  from  a  common  stock,  it  is  impossible  rationally 
to  doubt  their  descent  from  a  common  ancestry.  Unity  of  lan- 
guage, therefore,  proves  unity  of  species  because  it  proves  unity 
of  origin.  Diversity  of  language,  however,  does  not  prove  diver- 
sity either  of  species  or  of  origin.  Because  that  diversity  may  be 
otherwise  accounted  for  ;  as  by  the  confusion  of  tongues  at  Babel, 
or  by  the  early  and  long-continued  separation  of  different  tribes. 
The  point,  however,  now  to  be  urged,  is  this.  Such  naturalists  as 
Agassiz,  on  merely  zoological  principles,  have  decided  that  it  is 
more  probable  (not  that  it  is  necessary  or  certain,  but  simply  that 
it  is  more  probable),  that  the  different  varieties  of  men,  even  down 
to  different  nations,  have  had  different  origins,  and  as  Agassiz  in  his 
later  writings  maintains,  are  of  different  species  ;  when,  in  many 
cases  at  least,  it  is  absolutely  certain,  from  the  character  of  the 
languages  which  they  speak,  that  they  must  have  been  derived 
from  a  common  stock.  Agassiz  and  others  represent  the  Asiatic 
and  European  races  as  distinct  in  origin  and  species.  But  Alex- 
ander von  Humboldt  says,  "  The  comparative  study  of  languages 
shows  us  that  races  now  separated  by  vast  tracts  of  land,  are  allied 
too-ether,  and  have  migrated  from  one  common  primitive  seat.  .  .  . 
The  largest  field  for  such  investigations  into  the  ancient  condition 
of  language,  and  consequently  into  the  period  when  the  whole 
family  of  mankind  was,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  to  be  re- 
garded as  one  living  whole,  presents  itself  in   the  long  chain   of 


90       PART  II.     Cn.  IV.  — UNITY   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE. 

Indo-Germanic  languages,  extendino-  from  the  Gancjes  to  the 
Iberian  extremity  of  Europe,  and  from  Sicily  to  the  North 
Cape."  1  Max  Miiller  says,  "  The  evidence  of  language  is  irre- 
fragable, and  it  is  the  only  evidence  worth  listening  to,  with  regard 

to   ante-historical    periods There   is   not  an   English  jury 

nowadays,  Avhich,  after  examining  the  hoary  documents  of  lan- 
guage, would  reject  the  claim  of  a  common  descent  and  a  legiti- 
mate relationship  between  Hindu,  Greek,  and  Teuton."  ^  The 
Chevalier  Bunsen  says,  "The  Egyptian  language  attests  an  unity 
of  blood  with  the  great  Aramaic  tribes  of  Asia,  whose  languages 
have  been  comprised  under  the  general  expression  of  Semitic,  or 
the  languages  of  the  family  of  Shem.  It  is  equally  connected  by 
identity  of  origin  with  those  still  more  numerous  and  illustrious 
tribes  which  occupy  now  the  greatest  part  of  Europe,  and  may, 
perhaps,  alone  or  with  other  families,  have  a  right  to  be  called 
the  famil}'  of  Japhet."  ^  This  family,  he  says,  includes  the  Ger- 
man nation,  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  and  the  Indians  and  Persians. 
Two  thirds  of  the  human  race  are  thus  identified  by  these  two 
classes  of  languages  which  have  had  a  common  origin.  By  the 
same  infillible  test  Bunsen  shows  that  the  Asiatic  origin  of  all  the 
North  American  Indians,  "  is  as  fully  proved  as  the  unity  of  family 
among  themselves."*  Every  day  is  adding  some  new  language  to 
this  affiliated  list,  and  furnishing  additional  evidence  of  the  unity 
of  mankind.  The  particular  |)oint  to  be  now  considered  is,  that 
the  conclusions  of  the  mere  zoologist  as  to  the  diversity  of  species 
and  consequent  diversity  of  origin  of  the  different  varieties  of  our 
race,  are  proved  to  be  false  by  the  certain  testimony  of  the  com- 
mon origin  of  the  languages  which  they  speak. 

The  Spiritual  Relationship  of  Men. 
Besides  the  arguments  already  mentioned  in  favour  of  the  unity 
of  mankind,  next  to  the  direct  assertion  of  the  Bible,  that  which 
after  all  has  the  greatest  force  is  the  one  derived  from  the  present 
condition  of  our  moral  and  spiritual  nature.  Wherever  we  meet 
a  man,  no  matter  of  what  name  or  nation,  we  not  only  find  that 
he  has  the  same  nature  with  ourselves  ;  that  he  has  the  same 
organs,  the  same  senses,  the  same  instincts,  the  same  feelings,  the 
same  faculties,  the  same  understanding,  will,  and  conscience,  and 
the  same  capacity  for  religious  culture,  but  that  he  has  the  same 
guilty    and    polluted    nature,    and    needs    the    same    redemption. 

1  Cosmos,  Otto's  Translation,  edit.  London,  1849,  vol.  ii.  pp.  471,  472. 

2  Quoted  in  Cabell's  Unity  of  Mankind,  pp.  228,  229.  8  ibid.  p.  232 
<   The  Philosophy  of  Universal  History,  edit.  London,  1854,  vol.  ii.  p.  112. 


§4.]  PHILOLOGICAL   AND  MORAL   EVIDENCE.  91 

Christ  died  for  all  men,  and  we  are  commanded  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature  under  heaven.  Accordingly  nowhere 
on  the  face  of  the  earth  are  men  to  be  found  who  do  not  need 
the  gospel  or  who  are  not  capable  of  becoming  partakers  of  the 
blessings  which  it  offers.  The  spiritual  relationship  of  men,  their 
common  apostasy,  and  their  common  interest  in  the  I'edemption  of 
Christ,  demonstrate  their  common  nature  and  their  common  origin 
beyond  the  possibility  of  reasonable  or  excusable  doubt. 

Our  attention  has  thus  far  been  directed  specially  to  the  unity 
cf  mankind  in  species.  Little  need  be  said  in  conclusion  as  to 
their  unity  of  origin.  (1.)  Because  in  the  opinion  of  the  most 
distinguished  naturalists,  unity  of  species  is  itself  decisive  proof  of 
the  unity  of  origin.  (2.)  Because  even  if  this  be  denied,  it  is 
nevertheless  universally  admitted  that  when  the  species  is  the 
same  the  origin  may  be  the  same.  If  mankind  differ  as  to  species 
they  cannot  be  descended  from  a  common  parent,  but  if  identical 
in  species  there  is  no  difficulty  in  admitting  their  common  descent. 
It  is  indeed  principally  for  the  sake  of  disproving  the  Scrij)tural 
statement  that  all  men  are  the  children  of  Adam,  and  to  break 
up  the  common  brotherhood  of  man,  that  diversit}'  of  species  is 
insisted  upon.  If  therefore  the  latter  be  admitted,  the  former 
may  be  easily  conceded.  (3.)  The  common  origin  of  the  lan- 
guages of  the  vast  majority  of  men,  proves,  as  we  have  seen,  their 
community  of  origin,  and  as  an  inference  their  unity  as  to 
species.  And  as  this  community  of  origin  is  proved  as  to  races 
which  the  mere  zoologist  is  disposed  with  the  greatest  confidence  to 
represent  as  distinct,  the  insufficiency  of  the  grounds  of  their 
classification  is  thereby  demonstrated.  (4.)  It  is,  however,  the 
direct  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  on  this  subject,  with  which  all 
known  facts  are  consistent ;  and  the  common  apostasy  of  the  race, 
and  their  common  need  of  redemption,  which  render  it  certain  to 
all  who  believe  the  Bible  or  the  testimony  of  their  own  conscious- 
ness as  to  the  universal  sinfulness  of  humanity,  that  all  men  are 
the  descendants  of  one  fallen  progenitor. 


CHAPTER  V. 

ORIGINAL  STATE  OF  MAN. 

§  1.     The  Scriptural  Doctrine. 

TIkk  Scriptural  docti'ine  on  this  subject  includes  the  following 
particulars.  First,  That  man  was  originally  created  in  a  state  of 
maturity  and  perfection.  By  this,  however,  is  not  meant  that 
humanity  in  Adam  before  the  fall,  existed  in  the  highest  state  of 
excellence  of  which  it  is  susceptible.  It  is  altogether  probable  that 
our  nature,  in  virtue  of  its  union  with  the  divine  nature  in  the 
person  of  Christ,  and  in  virtue  of  the  union  of  the  redeemed  with 
their  exalted  Redeemer,  shall  hereafter  be  elevated  to  a  dignity 
and  glory  far  greater  than  that  in  which  Adam  was  created  or  to 
which  he  ever  could  have  attained.  By  the  maturity  of  man  as  at 
first  created  is  meant  that  he  was  not  created  in  a  state  of  infancy. 
It  is  a  favourite  assumption  of  sceptics  that  man  at  first  botli  as  to 
soul  and  body,  was  imbecile  and  unfurnished  ;  slowly  forming  for 
himself  an  articulate  language,  and  iiaving  his  moral  powers 
gradually  awakened.  This,  however,  is  inconsistent  not  only  with 
the  Scriptural  account  of  his  creation,  but  also  with  the  part  he 
was  designed  to  act,  and  in  fact  did  act.  By  the  perfection  of 
his  original  state  is  meant,  that  he  was  perfectly  adapted  to  the 
end  for  which  he  was  made  and  to  the  sphere  in  which  he  was 
designed  to  move.  This  perfection  as  to  his  body  consisted  not 
only  in  the  integrity  and  due  proportion  of  all  its  parts,  but  also  in 
its  perfect  adaptation  to  the  nature  of  the  soul  with  which  it  was 
united.  It  is  commonly  said  by  theologians  that  the  body  was 
created  immortal  and  impassible.  With  regard  to  its  immortality, 
it  is  certain  that  if  man  had  not  sinned  he  would  not  have  died. 
But  whether  the  immortality  which  would  then  have  been  the 
destiny  of  the  body,  would  have  been  the  result  of  its  original 
organization,  or  whether  after  its  period  of  probation  it  would  have 
undergone  a  change  to  adapt  it  to  its  evei'lasting  condition,  is  a 
matter  to  be  subsequently  considered.  By  impassibility  is  not 
necessarily  meant  entire  freecjom  from   susceptibility  to  pain,  for 


^  1.]  THE  SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINE.  93 

such  susceptibility  in  our  present  earthly  state,  and  perhaps  in  any 
conceivable  earthly  state,  is  a  necessary  condition  of  safety.  It 
is  a  good  and  not  an  evil,  a  perfection  and  not  a  defect.  All 
that  need  be  meant  by  the  term  is  that  the  body  of  Adam  was 
free  from  the  seeds  of  disease  and  death.  There  was  nothing  in 
its  constitution  inconsistent  with  the  highest  happiness  and  well- 
being  of  man  in  the  state  in  which  he  was  created,  and  the  con- 
ditions under  which  he  was  to  live. 

That  the  primitive  state  of  our  race  was  not  one  of  barbarism 
from  which  men  have  raised  themselves  by  a  slow  process  of  im- 
provement, we  know.  First,  from  the  authority  of  Scripture,  whicli 
represents,  as  we  have  seen,  the  first  man  as  created  in  the  full 
perfection  of  his  nature.  This  fact  for  all  Christians  is  decisive. 
Secondly,  the  traditions  of  all  nations  treat  of  a  golden  age  from 
which  men  have  fallen.  These  wide-spread  traditions  cannot  ra- 
tionally be  accounted  for,  except  on  the  assumption  that  the  Scrip- 
tural account  of  the  primitive  state  of  man  is  correct.  Thirdly, 
the  evidence  of  history  is  all  on  the  side  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Bible  on  this  subject.  Egypt  derived  its  civilization  from  the 
East ;  Greece  from  Phoenicia  and  Egypt ;  Italy  from  Phoenicia  and 
Greece  ;  the  rest  of  Europe  from  Italy.  Europe  is  now  rapidly 
extending  her  civilizing  influence  over  New  Zealand,  Australia, 
and  the  Islands  of  the  Pacific  Oceans.  The  affinity  of  languages 
proves  that  the  early  civilization  of  Mexico  and  South  America 
had  its  source  in  Eastern  Asia.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no 
authentic  account  of  a  nation  of  savages  rising  by  their  own  efforts 
from  a  state  of  barbarism  to  a  civilized  condition.  The  fact  that 
Sir  John  Lubbock,  and  other  advocates  of  the  opposite  doctrine, 
are  obliged  to  refer  to  such  obscure  and  really  insignificant  facts, 
as  the  superior  culture  of  the  modern  Indians  on  this  continent, 
is  a  proof  of  the  dearth  of  historical  evidence  in  support  of  the 
theory  of  primitive  barbarism.  Fourthly,  the  oldest  records,  writ- 
ten and  monumental,  give  evidence  of  the  existence  of  nations  in  a 
high  state  of  civilization,  in  the  earliest  periods  of  human  history. 
This  fact  is  easily  accounted  for  on  the  assumption  of  the  truth  of 
the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  the  primitive  state  of  man,  but  is  unac- 
countable on  the  opposite  hypothesis.  It  necessitates  the  gratui- 
tous assumption  of  the  existence  of  men  for  initold  ages  prior  to 
these  earliest  historical  periods.  Fifthly,  comparative  philology 
has  established  the  fact  of  the  intimate  relation  of  all  of  the  great 
divisions  of  the  human  race.  It  has  further  proved  that  they  all 
had  their  origin  from  a  common  centre,  and  that  that  centre  was 
the  seat  of  the  earliest  civilization. 


94  PART  11.     Ch.   v.  — original   STATE   OF  MAN. 

The  theory  tliat  the  race  of  man  has  passed  throu2;]i  a  stone,  a 
bronze,  and  an  iron  age,  stages  of  progress  from  barbarism  to  civiH- 
zation,  is,  as  before  remarked,  destitute  of  scientific  foundation.  It 
cannot  be  proved  that  the  stone  age  prevailed  contemporaneously 
in  all  parts  of  the  earth.  And  unless  this  is  proved  it  avails  noth- 
ing to  show  that  there  was  a  period  at  which  the  inhabitants  of 
Europe  were  destitute  of  a  knowledge  of  the  metals.  The  same 
may  be  proved  of  the  Patagonians  and  of  some  African  tribes  of 
the  present  day. 

It  has,  therefore,  been  almost  the  universal  belief  that  the  orig- 
inal state  of  man  was  as  the  Bible  teaches,  his  highest  state,  from 
which  the  nations  of  the  earth  have  more  or  less  deteriorated.  Tiiis 
primitive  state,  however,  was  distinguished  by  the  intellectual, 
moral,  and  religious  superiority  of  men  rather  than  by  superiority 
in  the  arts  or  natural  sciences.  The  Scriptural  doctrine,  therefore, 
is  consistent  with  the  admitted  fact  that  separate  nations,  and  the 
human  race  as  a  whole,  have  made  great  advances  in  all  branches 
of  knowledge  and  in  all  the  arts  of  life.  Nor  is  it  inconsistent  with 
the  belief  that  the  world  under  the  influence  of  Christianity  is  con- 
stantly improving,  and  will  ultimately  attain,  under  the  reign  of 
Christ,  millennial  perfection  and  glory.  All  that  is  denied  is,  that 
men  were  originally  savages  in  the  lowest  state  of  barbarism,  from 
which  they  have  gradually  emerged. 

The  late  Archbishop  Whately,  in  his  work  on  "  Political  Econ- 
omy," avowed  his  belief  of  the  common  doctrine  on  the  primitive 
state  of  man.  He  says,  "  We  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  any 
community  ever  did,  or  ever  can  emerge,  unassisted  by  external 
helps,  from  a  state  of  barbarism  unto  anything  that  can  be  called 
civilization."  In  opposition  to  this  doctrine,  Sir  John  Lubbock 
tries  to  show  "  That  there  are  indications  of  progress  even  among 
savatres,"  and,  "  That  among  the  most  civilized  nations  there  are 
traces  of  original  barbarism."^  Before  adducing  proof  of  either 
of  those  propositions,  he  argues  against  the  theory  that  any  tribe 
has  sunk  from  a  higher  to  a  lower  condition,  on  the  ground  that 
there  are  certain  arts  which  are  so  simple  and  so  useful,  that  if 
once  known,  they  could  never  be  lost.  If  men  had  once  been 
herdsmen  and  agriculturists,  they  would  never  become  mere 
hunters ;  if  acquainted  with  the  use  of  metals,  or  the  art 
of  making  earthenware,  these  acquisitions  could  not  be  lost. 
If  once  possessed  of  religious   knowledge,   that   knowledge   could 

1  Tlie.  Origin  of  Civilization  and  the  Primitive  Condition  of  Man.     By  Sir  Joha  Lubbock, 
Bart.,  M.  P.,  V.  R.  S.,  London,  1870,  p.  329. 


§  1.]  THE  SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINE.  95 

never  perish.  As  however,  there  are  tribes  now  extant  whicli 
have,  as  he  says,  no  religion,  and  no  knowledge  of  the  arts,  or  of 
agriculture,  he  argues  that  they  must  have  been  barbarians  from 
the  beginning,  and  that  bai"barism  must  have  been  the  original 
condition  of  man. 

To  prove  that  savages  may  by  their  own  exertions  become  civil- 
ized he  refers  to  such  facts  as  the  following :  The  Australians  had 
formerly  bark-canoes,  which  they  have  abandoned  for  others,  hol- 
lowed out  of  the  trunk  of  a  tree,  "  which  they  buy  from  the 
Malays."  The  Peruvians  had  domesticated  the  llama  ;  the  Poly- 
nesians made  bark-cloth.  "  Another  very  strong  case,"  he  says, 
"  is  the  boomerang  of  the  Australians.  This  weapon  is  known  to 
no  other  race  of  men,"  and  therefore,  he  argues,  cannot  be  a  relic 
of  a  higher  state  of  civilization.  He  lays  great  stress  on  the  case 
of  the  Cherokees  who  have  become  agriculturists,  having  ploughs, 
horses,  black-cattle,  etc.,  ignoring  the  fact  that  they  were  sur- 
rounded by  civilized  Americans  and  had  enjoyed  for  years  the 
faithful  teaching  of  Christian  missionaries  who  instructed  them  in 
all  the  useful  arts. 

He  finds  indications  of  the  original  barbarism  of  the  race  in  the 
fact  that  flint  implements  are  found  not  only  in  Europe,  but  also  in 
Asia,  the  cradle  of  mankind  ;  and  in  the  gradual  improvement  of 
the  relation  between  the  sexes.^  His  book  is  designed  to  "  de- 
scribe the  social  and  mental  condition  of  savages,  their  art,  their 
systems  of  marriage  and  of  relationship,  their  religions,  language, 
moral  character  and  laws."  This  he  does  by  a  very  copious  col- 
lection of  particulars  under  these  several  heads  ;  and  thence  draws 
the  following  conclusions.  "  That  existing  savages  are  not  the  de- 
scendants of  civilized  ancestors.  That  the  primitive  condition  of  man 
was  one  of  utter  barbarism.  That  from  this  condition  several  races 
have  independently  raised  themselves."  ^  How  these  conclusions 
follow  from  the  facts  detailed,  it  is  impossible  to  see  ;  especially  as 
they  are  in  opposition  not  only  to  the  Bible,  but  to  all  the  teach- 
ings of  history.  That  the  lowest  savage  tribes  have  low  ideas  of 
God,  is  no  proof  that  our  first  parents  were  fetich  worshippers, 
when  all  history  proves  that  the  earliest  religion  of  our  race  was 
pure  Theism.  As  men  lost  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  they  be- 
came more  and  more  degraded  in  every  other  respect.     And  those 

1  On  page  G6,  he  says,  "  Assuminf?  that  the  communal  marriage  system  shown  in  the 
preceding  pages  to  prevail,  or  have  prevailed  so  widely  among  races  in  a  low  state  of  civil- 
ization, reprfseiits  the  primitive  and  earliest  social  condition  of  man,  we  now  come  to  con- 
sider the  various  ways  in  which  it  may  have  been  broken  up  and  replaced  by  individual 
marriage." 

2  Ibid.  p.  323 


96        PART  n.   Ch.  v.  — original  state  of  man. 

who  were  driven  away  from  the  centres  of  civilization  into  inhos- 
pitable regions,  torrid  or  arctic,  sunk  lower  and  lower  in  the  scale 
of  bein(^  Certain  it  is  that  there  is  nothing  in  Sir  John  Lubbock's 
book  that  can  shake  the  faith  of  a  Christian  child  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Bible  as  to  the  primitive  state  of  man. 

§  2.     Man  Created  in  the  Image  of  God. 

Secondly.    Other  animals,  however,  besides  man,  were  created 
in  maturity  and  perfection,  each  according  to  its  kind.     It  was  the 
distinguishing  characteristic  of  man,  that  he  was   created   in   the 
imao-e  and  likeness  of  God.    Many  of  the  early  writers  assumed  that 
the  word  "  image  "  had  reference  to  the  body,  which  they  thought 
l)y  its  beauty,  intelligence  of  aspect,  and  erect  stature,  was  an  adum- 
bration of  God,  and  that  the  word  "  likeness  "  referred  to  the  intel- 
lectual and  moral  nature    of  man.     According  to  Augustine,  im- 
ao-e relates  to  the  cognitio  veritatis,  and  likeness  to  the  amor  virtutis  ; 
the  former  to  the  intellectual,  and  the  latter  to  the  moral  faculties. 
This  was  the  foundation  of  the  scholastic  doctrine  that  the  image  of 
God  includes  the  natural  attributes  of  the  soul ;  and  the  likeness 
our  moral  conformity  to  the  divine  Being.   This  distinction  was  in- 
troduced into  the  Romish  theology.     Bellarmin  ^  says,  "  Imaginem 
in  natura,  similitudinem   in  probitate  et  justitia  sitam  esse."     He 
also  says,  ^  "  Ex  his  tot  patrum   testimoniis  cogimur  admittere,  non 
esse  omnino  idem   imaginem   et  similitudinem,   sed    imaginem  ad 
naturam,   similitudinem    ad   virtutes  pertinere  ;  proinde  Adamum 
peccando  non  imaginem  Dei,  sed  similitudinem  perdidisse."  Others 
again  somewhat  modified   this  view  by  making  the   image   of  God 
to  consist  in  what  was  natural  and  conci-eated,  and  the  likeness  in 
what  was   acquired.      Man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God   and 
fashioned  himself  into  his  likeness.     That  is,  he  so  used  his  natural 
endowments  as  to  become  like  God  in   character.     All   these  dis- 
tinctions,   however,  rest  on  a  false  interpretation   of  Gen.  i.   26. 
The  words  D'!?r?  and  rVKil,  are  simply  explanatory  one  of  the  other. 
Image  and  likeness,  means  an   image  which   is  like.     The  simple 
declaration  of   the  Scripture  is  that  man  at  his  creation  was  like 
God.     Wherein  that  likeness  consisted  has  been  a  matter  of  dis- 
pute.    According  to  the  Reformed  theologians  and  the  majority  of 
the  theologians  of  other  divisions  of  the  Church,  man's  likeness  to 
God  included  the  following  points  :  — 

His  intellectual  and  moral  nature.     God  is  a  Spirit,  the   human 

1  De  Gratia  et  Libera  Ai-bitrio,  i.  6.    D{sputatiom$,  Paris,  1608,  vol.  iv.  p.  402,  a. 

2  De  Gratia  Primi  Hominis,  2.     Ibid.  p.  8,  d. 


§  2.]      MAN  CREATED  IN  THE  IMAGE  OF  GOD.       97 

soul  is  a  spirit.     The  essential   attributes  of  a  spirit  are   reason, 
conscience,  and  will.     A  spirit  is  a  rational,  moral,  and   therefore 
also,  a  free  agent.     In  making  man  after  his  own  image,  therefore, 
God  endowed  him  with  those  attributes  which  belong  to  his  own 
nature  as  a  spirit.     Man   is  thereby  distinguished  from  all  other 
inhabitants  of  this  world,   and   raised   immeasurably  above  them. 
He  belongs  to  the   same  order  of  being  as   God  Himself,  and  is 
therefore  capable  of  communion  with  his  Maker.    This  conformity 
of  nature  between  man  and  God,  is  not  only  the  distinguishing  pre- 
rogative of  humanity,  so  far  as  earthly  creatures  are   concerned, 
but  it  is  also  the  necessary  condition  of  our  capacity  to  know  God, 
and  therefore  the  foundation  of  our  religious  nature.     If  we   were 
not  like  God,  we  could  not   know  Him.     We   should  be   as  the 
beasts  which  perish.     The  Scriptures  in  declaring  that  God  is  the 
Father  of  spirits,  and  that  we  are  his  offspring,   teach   us  that  we 
are  partakers  of  his  nature  as  a  spiritual  being,  and  that  an   essen- 
tial element  of  that  likeness  to  God  in  which  man  was  originally 
created  consists  in  our  rational  or  spiritual   nature.     On  this   sub- 
ject, however,  there  have  been  two  extreme  opinions.    The  Greek 
theologians  made  the  image  of  God  in  which  man  was  created  to 
consist  exclusively  in  his  rational  nature.     The  majority  of  them 
taught  that  the  eiKwv  was  ev  XoyiKfj  </'ux??  >  or  as  John  of  Damascus  ^ 
expresses    it :     to   kut     eiKoia,  ro    voepou    8r]\ol   kol   avTe|ovcnov.       And 
Irengeus  ^  says  :  "  Homo  vero  rationabilis  et  secundum  hoc  similis 
Deo."     The  Remonstrants  and  Socinians  were  disposed  to  confine 
the  image  of  God  in  which   man  was  created    to   his  dominion. 
Thus  Limborch  ^  says :  "  Ilia  imago  aliud  nihil  est,  quam  eximia, 
quaedam  qualitas  et  excellentia,  qua  homo  Deum  speciatim  refert : 
hgec  autem  est  potestas  et  dominium,   quod  Deus  homini  dedit  in 
omnia  a  se  creata.     ....     Hoc  enim  dominio  Deum  proprie 
refert,  estque  quasi  visibilis  Deus  in  terra  super  omnes  Dei  crea- 
turas    constitutus."       This    dominion,  however,   was    founded   on 
man's  rational   nature,  and  therefore  Limborch  adds,  that  Adam's 
likeness  to  God  pertained  to  his  soul,  "  quatenus  ratione  instructa 
est,  cujus  ministerio,  veluti  sceptro  quodam,  omnia  sibi  subjicere 
potest."     These  views  agree  in  excluding  man's  moral  conformity 
to  God  from  the  idea  of  the  divine  image  in  which  he  was  created. 
The  Lutheran  theologians  were,  in  general,  inclined  to  go  to  the 
opposite  extreme.     The  image  of  God,  according  to  them,  was  that 

1  II.  12 ;  Strauss,  Dogmatik,  vol.  i.  p.  690. 

2  IV.  iv.  3;    Works,  edit.  Leipzig,  1853,  vol.  i.  p.  569. 

3  Thtologia  Christiana,  ii.  xxiv.  2,  edit.  Amsterdam,  1715,  pp.  133, 134. 

VOL.  U.  7 


98  PART  II.     Ch.   v.  — original   STATE    OF  MAN. 

which  was  lost  by  the  fall,  and  which  is  restored  by  redemption. 
Thus  Luther  says  :  "  So  ist  nun  bier  so  viel  gesagt,  dass  der 
Mensch  am  Anfang  geschaffen  ist  ein  Bild,  das  Gott  ahnlich  war, 
voll  Weisheit,  Tugend,  Liebe  und  kurzum  gleich  wie  Gott,  also 
dass  er  voll  Gottes  war."  And :  "  Das  ist  Gottes  Bild,  das  eben 
also  wie  Gott  gesinnet  ist  und  sich  immer  nach  ihm  abmet."^ 
Calovius  and  other  Lutheran  theologians  say  expressly :  "Anima 
ipsa  rationalis  non  est  imago  divina,  aut  imaginis  pars,  quia  anima 
non  est  amissa,  at  imago  amissa  est."  And  again  :  "  Unde  patet, 
conformitatem,  quae  in  substantia  animae  reperitur  aut  corporis,  ad 
imaginem  Dei,  stylo  biblico  descriptam,  non  pertinere,  quia  substan- 
tia animae  aut  corporis  per  lapsum  non  est  perdita,  nee  per  renova- 
tionem  restauratur."  This,  however,  is  rather  a  dispute  about  the 
Scriptural  use  of  the  phrase  "  image  of  God,"  as  applied  to  man  in 
his  original  estate,  than  about  the  fact  itself;  for  the  Lutherans  did 
not  deny  that  the  soul  as  to  its  nature  or  substance  is  like  God. 
Hollazius  admits  that  "  Ipsa  substantia  animse  humange  qu^dam  Oeta 
seu  divina  exprimit,  et  exemplar  divinitatis  refert.  Nam  Deus  est 
spiritus  immaterialis,  intelligens,  voluntate  libera  agens,  etc.,  etc. 
Qu£e  prffidicata  de  anima  humana  certo  modo  affirmari  possunt."  ^ 
The  Reformed  theologians  take  the  middle  ground  between  the 
extremes  of  making  the  image  of  God  to  consist  exclusively  in 
man's  rational  nature,  or  exclusively  in  his  moral  conformity  to  his 
Maker.  They  distinctly  include  both.  Calvin  ^  says,  Imago  Dei 
est  "Integra  naturae  humanae  praestantia,  quae  refulsit  in  Adam 
ante  defectionem  postea  sic  vitiata  et  prope  deleta,  ut  nihil  ex  ruina 
nisi  confusum,  mutilum,  labeque  infectum  supersit."  H.  a  Diest^ 
is  more  explicit:  "Imago  Dei  fuit  partim  inamissibilis,  partim  amissi- 
bilis  ;  inamissibilis,  quae  post  lapsum  Integra  permansit,  veluti  animae 
substantia  spiritualis,  immortalis,  rationalis,  cum  potentiis  intelligendi 
etlibere  volendi ;  amissibilis,  quae  partim  plane  periit,  partim  corrnpta 
est,  manentibus  tantum  exiguis  ejusdem  reliquiis  ;  veluti  in  intellectu 
insignis  sapientia,  in  voluntate  et  affectibus  vera  justitia  et  sanctitas, 
in  corpore  immortalitas,  sanitas,  fortltudo,  pulchritudo,  dominium  in 
animalia,  copia  omnium  bonorum  et  jus  utendi  creaturis."  Maresius^ 
says:  "Imago  Dei  spectavit,  (1.)  Animae  essentiam  et  conditionem 
spiritualem,  intelligentem  et  volentem,  quod  contra  Lutheranos  per- 
tendimus,  quum  post  lapsum  etiam  rudera  imaginis  Dei  adsint. 
(2.)  Eluxit  in  accidentali  animae  perfectione,  mentis  lumine,  vol- 

1  SeiTnons  on  Genesis,  edit.  Eriangen,  1843,  vol.  xxxiii.  pp.  55,  67. 

2  Examen,  Leipzig,  1763,  p.  463. 

8  Institutio,  lib.  i.  xv.  4,  edit.  Berlin,  1834,  vol.  i.  p.  130. 

*  Thevlugia  Biblica,  Daventriie,  1644,  pp.  73,  74. 

*  Collegium  Theologicum,  loc.  v.  52,  53,  54,  edit.  Groningen,  1659,  p.  60. 


§3.]  ORIGINAL  RIGHTEOUSNESS.  99 

untatis  sanctitate,  sensuum  et  afFectuum  harmonia  atque  ad  bonum 
promptitudine ;  (3.)  conspicua  fuit  in  domlnio  in  omnia  animalia." 
While,  therefore,  the  Scriptures  make  the  original  moral  perfection 
of  man  the  most  prominent  element  of  that  likeness  to  God  in  which 
he  was  created,  it  is  no  less  true  that  they  recognize  man  as  a  child 
of  God  in  virtue  of  his  rational  nature.  He  is  the  image  of  God, 
and  bears  and  I'eflects  the  divine  likeness  among  the  inhabitants  of 
the  earth,  because  he  is  a  spirit,  an  intelligent,  voluntary  agent; 
and  as  such  he  is  rightfully  invested  with  universal  dominion.  This 
is  what  the  Reformed  theologians  were  accustomed  to  call  the  essen- 
tial image  of  God,  as  distinguished  from  the  accidental.  The  one 
consisting  in  the  very  nature  of  the  soul,  the  other  in  its  accidental 
endowments,  that  is,  such  as  might  be  lost  without  the  loss  of 
humanity  itself. 

§  3.    Original  Righteousness. 

In  the  moral  image  of  God,  or  original  righteousness,  are  in- 
cluded, — 

1.  The  perfect  harmony  and  due  subordination  of  all  that  consti- 
tuted man.  His  reason  was  subject  to  God ;  his  will  was  subject 
to  his  reason  ;  his  affections  and  appetites  to  his  will  ;  the  body 
was  the  obedient  organ  of  the  soul.  There  was  neither  rebellion 
of  the  sensuous  part  of  his  nature  against  the  rational,  nor  was 
there  any  disproportion  between  them  needing  to  be  controlled  or 
balanced  by  ah  extra  gifts  or  influence. 

2.  But  besides  this  equilibrium  and  harmony  in  the  orio-inal 
constitution  of  man,  his  moral  perfection  in  which  he  resembled 
God,  included  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  holiness.  The  two 
passages  of  the  New  Testament  in  which  these  elements  of  the 
divine  image  in  which  man  was  created,  are  distinctly  mentioned,  are 
Col.  iii.  10,  and  Eph.  iv.  24.  In  the  former  it  is  said,  Ye  "  have  put 
on  the  new  man,  which  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image  of 
him  that  created  him :  "  ei'Suo-a/Acvot  rov  viov,  tov  avaKcivovixivov  els 
iTTtyvwaiv  kut  eiKova  rov  KTLaavro^  avrov.  New  man  (viov^  afreeablv' 
to  the  ordinary  distinction  between  vio<i  and  Kaivds,  means  recent, 
newly  made,  as  opposed  to  (xaXato's)  old.  The  moral  quality  or 
excellence  of  this  recently  formed  man  is  expressed  in  the  word 
avaKaivovjxivov ;  as  in  Scriptural  usage  what  is  /cau'ds  is  pure.  This 
renovation  is  said  to  be  f-U  eVtyi'wcriv,  not  in  knowledge,  much  less 
hy  knowledge,  but  unto  knowledge,  so  that  he  knows.  Knowledge 
is  tiie  effect  of  the  renovation  spoken  of.  The  word  iTrtyvwa-tv  may 
be  connected  with  the  words  which  immediately  follow  (»caT  et^dm), 
hnoioledge  according  to  the  image  of  God,  i.  e.,  knowledge  like  that 


100         PART   II.     Ch.   v.  — original   STATE   OF  MAN. 

which  God  possesses.  It  is  more  common  and  natural  to  take 
iirtyvwcny  by  itself,  and  connect  Kar  eiKova  with  the  preceding  partici- 
ple, "  renewed  after  the  image  of  God."  The  knowledge  here 
intended  is  not  mere  cognition.  It  is  full,  accurate,  living,  or  prac- 
tical knowledge ;  sucli  knowledge  as  is  eternal  life,  so  that  this 
word  here  includes  what  in  Eph.  iv.  24  is  expressed  by  righteousness 
and  holiness.  Whether  the  word  Kria-avros  refers  to  God  as  the 
author  of  the  original  creation,  or  of  the  new  creation  of  which  the 
Apostle  is  here  speaking,  is  matter  of  doubt.  In  the  former  case, 
the  meaning  would  be,  the  believer  is  renewed  after  the  image  of 
his  Creator.  In  the  latter,  the  sense  is  that  the  renovation  is  after 
the  image  of  the  creator  of  the  new  man.  According  to  the  one 
mode  of  explanation  the  idea  is  more  clearly  expressed  that  man, 
as  originally  created,  was  endowed  with  true  knowledge.  According 
to  the  other  interpretation  this  may  be  implied,  but  is  not  asserted. 
All  tliat  the  Apostle  in  that  case  affirms  is  that  the  regenerated 
man  is  made  like  God  in  knowledge.  But  as  the  original  man  was 
also  like  God,  and  as  knowledge  is  included  in  that  likeness,  the 
passage  still  proves  that  Adam  was  created  in  the  possession  of  the 
knowledge  of  which  the  Apostle  here  speaks.  As  the  word  kti^clv 
in  the  New  Testament  always  refers  to  the  original  creation,  unless 
some  explanatory  term  be  added,  as  new  creation,  or,  unless  the 
context  forbids  such  reference  ;  and  as  KT(a-avTo<;  does  not  express  the 
continuous  process  of  transformation,  but  the  momentary  act  of 
creation  as  already  past,  it  is  more  natural  to  understand  the 
Apostle  as  speaking  of  tlie  original  likeness  to  God  in  which  man 
was  created,  and  to  which  the  believer  is  restored.  The  aurw, 
therefore,  is  not  to  be  understood  of  tov  viov,  but  of  avOpmTrov ;  — 
after  the  image  of  Him  who  created  man.  This  is  the  old  inter- 
pretation as  given  by  Calovius  and  adopted  by  De  Wette,  Riickert, 
and  other  modern  interpreters.  Calovius  says:  "Per  ma^mew 
ejus,  qui  creavit  ipsum,  imago  Dei,  quae  in  prima  creatione  nobis 
concessa  vel  concreata  est,  intelligltur,  quaeque  in  nobis  reparatur 
per  Spiritum  Sanctum,  quae  ratione  intellectus  consistebat  in  cog- 
nitione  Dei,  ut  ratione  voluntatis  in  justitia  et  sanctitate,  Eph.  iv. 
24.  Per  verbum  itaque  rov  KTio-avros  non  nova  creatio,  sed  vetus 
ilia  et  primaeva  intelligitur,  quia  in  Adamoconditi  omnes  sumus 
ad  imaginem  Dei  in  cognitione  Dei." 

Ephesians  iv.  24. 

The  other  passage  above  referred  to  is  Eph.  iv.  24 :  "  Put  on 
the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  in  righteousness  and  true 


§3.]  ORIGINAL   RIGHTEOUSNESS.  101 

holiness."  The  new  man,  rof  Kaivw  dvOpw-n-ov,  is  said  to  be  Kara  Oeov, 
i.  e-i  after  the  image  of  God  ;  and  that  image  or  likeness  to  God  is 
said  to  consist  in  righteousness  and  holiness.  These  words  when 
used  in  combination  are  intended  to  be  exhaustive ;  i.  e.,  to  include 
all  moral  excellence.  Either  term  may  be  used  in  this  comprehen- 
sive sense,  but,  when  distinguished,  SiKaLoa-vvr]  means  rectitude,  the 
being  and  doing  right,  what  justice  demands  ;  6a-tori;s,  purity,  holi- 
ness, the  state  of  mind  produced  when  the  soul  is  full  of  God. 
Instead  of  true  holiness,  the  words  of  the  Apostle  should  be  ren- 
dered "  righteousness  and  holiness  of  the  truth ; "  that  is,  the 
righteousness  and  holiness  which  are  the  effects  or  manifestations 
of  the  truth.  By  truth  here,  as  opposed  to  the  deceit  (dTraT*?) 
mentioned  in  the  twenty-second  verse,  is  meant  what  in  Col.  iii. 
10  is  called  knowledge.  It  is  the  divine  light  in  the  understanding, 
of  which  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  the  author,  and  from  which,  as  their 
proximate  cause,  all  right  affections  and  holy  acts  proceed. 

It  is  plain  from  these  passages  that  knowledge,  righteousness, 
and  holiness  are  elements  of  the  image  of  God  in  which  man  was 
originally  created.     By  knowledge  is  not  meant  merely  the  faculty 
of  cognition,  the  ability  to  acquire  knowledge,  but  the  contents  of 
that  faculty.  As  knowledge  may  be  innate,  so  it  may  be  concreated. 
Adam,  as  soon  as  he  began  to  be   had  self-knowledge  ;    he   was 
conscious  of  his  own  being,  faculties,  and  states.     He  had  also  the 
knowledge  of  what  was  out  of  himself,  or  he  had  what  the  modern 
philosophy  calls  world-consciousness.     He  not  only  perceived  the 
various   material   objects    by   which   he    was  surrounded,    but    he 
apprehended  aright  their  nature.    How  far  this  knowledge  extended 
we  are  unable  to  determine.     Some  have  supposed  that  our  first 
parent  had  a  more  thorough  knowledge  of  the  external  world,  of 
its  laws,  and  of  the  nature  of  its  various  productions,  than  human 
science  has  ever  since  attained.     It  is  certain  that  he  was  able  to 
give  appropriate  names  to  all  classes  of  animals  which  passed  in 
review  before  him,  which  supposes  a  due  apprehension  of  their  dis- 
tinctive characteristics.     On  tiiis  point  we  know  nothing  beyond 
what  the  Bible  teaches  us.     It  is  more  important  to  remark  that 
Adam  knew  God;  whom  to  know  is  life  eternal.     Knowledge,  of 
course,  differs  as  to  its  objects.     The  cognition  of  mere  speculative 
truths,  as  those  of  science  and  history,  is  a  mere  act  of  the  under- 
standing ;  tlie  cognition  of  the  beautiful  involves  the  exercise  of 
our  aesthetic  nature  ;   of  moral  truths  the  exercise  of  our  moral 
nature ;  and  the  knowledge  of  God  the  exercise  of  our  spiritual 
and  religious  nature.     The  natural  man,  says  the  Apostle,  receives 


102         PART  II.     Ch.    v.— original   STATE   OF  MAN. 

not  tlie  things  of  the  Spirit,  neither  can  he  know  them.  What  is 
asserted  of  Adam  is  that,  as  he  came  from  the  hands  of  his  Maker, 
his  mind  was  imbued  with  this  spiritual  or  divine  knowledge. 

All  that  has  been  said  with  regard  to  the  original  state  of  man  is 
involved  in  the  account  of  the  creation,  which  declares  that  he  was 
made  like  God ;  and  that  he  was  pronounced  to  be  good,  good  exceed- 
ingly. What  the  goodness  is  which  belongs  to  man  as  a  rational, 
immortal,  and  religious  being,  and  which  is  necessary  to  fit  him  for 
the  sphere  in  which  he  was  to  move,  and  the  destiny  for  which  he 
was  created,  we  learn  partly  from  the  express  declarations  of  the 
Scriptures,  partly  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  partly  from  what 
is  involved  in  humanity  as  restored  by  Christ.  From  all  these  sources 
it  is  plain  that  the  Protestant  doctrine  concerning  the  image  of  God 
and  the  original  righteousness  in  which  and  with  which  Adam  was 
created  includes  not  only  his  rational  nature,  but  also  knowledge, 
righteousness,  and  holiness. 

§  4.  Dominion  over  the  Creatures. 

The  third  particular  which  enters  into  the  dignity  of  man's  origi- 
nal state,  and  into  the  image  of  God  with  which  he  was  invested, 
was  his  dominion  over  the  creatures.  This  arose  from  the  powers 
with  which  he  was  invested,  and  from  the  express  appointment  of 
God.  God  constituted  him  ruler  over  the  earth.  He  placed,  as 
the  Psalmist  said,  all  things  under  his  feet.  In  1  Cor.  xi.  7,  the 
Apostle  says  that  the  man  is  the  image  and  glory  of  God ;  but  the 
woman  is  the  glory  of  the  man.  This  he  gives  as  the  reason  why 
the  man  should  do  nothing  which  implied  the  denial  of  his  right  to 
rule.  It  was  therefore  as  a  ruler  that  he  bore  God's  image,  or 
represented  Him  on  earth.  What  is  the  extent  of  the  dominion 
granted  to  man,  or  to  which  our  race  was  destined,  it  is  not  easy 
to  determine.  Judging  from  the  account  given  in  Genesis,  or  even 
from  the  stronger  lansuao-e  used  in  the  eighth  Psalm,  we  should 
conclude  that  his  authority  was  to  extend  only  over  the  inferior 
animals  belonging  to  this  earth.  But  the  Apostle,  in  his  exposition 
of  the  words  of  the  Psalmist,  teaches  us  that  far  more  was  intended. 
In  1  Cor.  XV.  27,  he  says,  "  When  he  saith.  All  things  are  put 
under  him,  it  is  manifest  that  he  is  excepted,  which  did  put  all  things 
under  him."  And  in  Heb.  ii.  8,  he  says,  "  In  that  he  put  all  in 
subjection  under  him,  he  left  nothing  that  is  not  put  under  him." 
It  was  therefore  an  absolutely  universal  dominion,  so  far  as  creatures 
are  concerned,  with  which  man  was  to  be  invested.  This  universal 
dominion,  as  we  learn  from  the  Scriptures,  h^as  been  realized  and 


§5.]  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  THE   ROMISH   CHURCH.  103 

attained  only  by  the  incarnation  and  exaltation  of  the  Son  of  God. 
But  as  God  sees  the  end  from  the  beginning,  as  his  plan  is  immu- 
table and  all  comprehending,  this  supreme  exaltation  of  humanity 
was  designed  from  the  beginning,  and  included  in  the  dominion 
with  which  man  was  invested. 

§  5.   The  Doctrine  of  the  Romish  Ohurch. 

The  doctrine  of  Romanists  as  to  the  original  state  of  man  agrees 
with  that  of  Protestants,  except  in  one  important  particular.  They 
hold  that  man  before  the  fall,  was  in  a  state  of  relative  perfec- 
tion ;  that  is,  not  only  free  from  any  defect  or  infirmity  of  body, 
but  endowed  with  all  the  attributes  of  a  spirit,  and  imbued  with 
knowledge,  righteousness,  and  holiness,  and  invested  with  dominion 
over  the  creatures.  Protestants  include  all  this  under  the  image 
of  God  ;  the  Romanists  understand  by  the  image  of  God  only  the 
rational,  and  especially  the  voluntary  nature  of  man,  or  the  freedom 
of  the  will.  They  distinguish,  therefore,  between  the  image  of  God 
and  original  righteousness.  The  latter  they  say  is  lost,  the  former 
retained.  Protestants,  on  the  other  hand,  hold  that  it  is  the  divine 
image  in  its  most  important  constituents,  that  man  forfeited  by  his 
apostasy.  This,  however,  may  be  considered  only  a  difference  as 
to  words.  The  important  point  of  difference  is,  that  the  Protestants 
hold  that  original  righteousness,  so  far  as  it  consisted  in  the  moral 
excellence  of  Adam,  was  natural,  while  the  Romanists  maintain  that 
it  was  supernatural.  According  to  their  theory,  God  created  man 
soul  and  body.  These  two  constituents  of  his  nature  are  naturally 
in  conflict.  To  preserve  the  harmony  between  them,  and  the  due 
subjection  of  the  flesh  to  the  spirit,  God  gave  man  the  supernatural 
gift  of  original  righteousness.  It  was  this  gift  that  man  lost  by  his 
fall ;  so  that  since  the  apostasy  he  is  in  the  state  in  which  Adam 
was  before  he  was  invested  with  this  supernatural  endowment.  In 
opposition  to  this  doctrine,  Protestants  maintain  that  original  right- 
eousness was  concreated  and  natural.  Original  righteousness,  says 
Luther,^  "  Non  fuisse  quoddam  donum,  quod  ab  extra  accederet,  sep- 
aratum a  natura  hominis.  Sed  fuisse  vere  naturalem,  ita  ut  natura 
Adse  esset,  diligere  Deum,  credere  Deo,  agnoscere  Deum,  etc.  Haec 
tam  naturalia  fuere  in  Adamo,  quam  naturale  est,  quod  oculi  lumen 
recipiunt."  The  Council  of  Trent  does  not  speak  explicitly  on  this 
point,  but  the  language  of  the  Roman  Catechism  is  cleai'ly  in 
accordance  with  the  more  direct  teachings  of  the  theologians  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  to  the  effect  that  original  righteousness  is  a  super- 

1  In  Genesis,  cap.  iii. ;  Works,  edit.  Wittenberg,  1555  (Latin),  vol.  vi.,  leaf  42,  page  2. 


104        PART  II.     Ch.  v.  — original   STATE   OF  MAN. 

natural  gift.  In  describing  the  original  state  of  man  that  Catechism 
says,^ "  Quod  ad  animam  pertinet,  eum  ad  imaginem  et  similitudinem 
suam  formavit,  liberumque  ei  arbitrium  tribuit :  omnes  praeterea  mo- 
tus  animi  atque  appetitiones  ita  in  eo  temperavit,  ut  rationis  imperio 
nunquain  non  parerent.  Turn  originalis  justitiee  admirabile  donum 
addidit,  ac  deinde  cseteris  animantibus  prseesse  voluit."  Bellarmin''* 
states  this  doctrine  in  clearer  terms :  "  Integritas  ilia,  cum  qua  primus 
homo  conditus  fuit  et  sine  qua  post  ejus  lapsum  homines  omnes  nas- 
cuntur,  non  fuit  naturalis  ejus  conditio,  sed  supernaturalis  evectio. 
.  .  .  .^  Sciendum  est  primo,  hominem  naturaliter  constare  ex  came, 
et  spiritu,  et  ideo  partim  cum  bestiis,  partim  cum  angelis  communi- 
care  naturam,  et  quidem  ratione  carnis,  et  communionis  cum  bestiis, 
habere  propensionem  quandam  ad  bonum  corporale,  et  sensibile,  in 
quod  fertur  per  sensum  et  appetitum :  ratione  spiritus  et  commu- 
nionis cum  angelis,  habere  propensionem  ad  bonum  spirituale  et 
intelligibile,  in  quod  fertur  per  intelligentiam,  et  voluntatem.  Ex 
his  autem  diversis,  vel  contrariis  propensionibus  existere  in  uno 
eodemque  homine  pugnam  quandam,  et  ex  ea  pugna  ingentem  bene 
agendi  difficultatem,  dum  una  propensio  alteram  impedit.  Sciendum 
secundo,  divinam  providentiam  initio  creationis,  ut  remedium  adhi- 
beret  huic  morbo  seu  languori  naturae  humane,  qui  ex  conditione 
materia  oriebatur,  addidisse  homini  donum  quoddam  insigne,  justiti- 
am  videlicet  originalem,  qua  veluti  aureo  quodam  fraeno  pars  inferior 
parti  superiori,  et  pars  superior  Deo  facile  subjecta  contineretur." 

The  question  whether  original  righteousness  was  natural  or  su- 
pernatural cannot  be  answered  until  the  meaning  of  the  words  be 
determined.  The  word  natural  is  often  used  to  designate  that 
which  constitutes  nature.  Reason  is  in  such  a  sense  natural  to  man 
that  without  it  he  ceases  to  be  a  man.  Sometimes  it  designates 
what  of  necessity  flows  from  the  constitution  of  nature ;  as  when  we 
say  it  is  natural  for  man  to  desire  his  own  happiness ;  sometimes  it 
designates  what  is  concreated  or  innate  as  opposed  to  what  is  adven- 
titious, accessory,  or  acquired  ;  in  this  use  of  the  word  the  sense  of 
justice,  pity,  and  the  social  affections,  are  natural  to  men.  Original 
righteousness  is  asserted  by  Protestants  to  be  natural,  first,  with 
the  view  of  denying  that  human  nature  as  at  first  constituted  in- 
volved the  conflicting  principles  of  flesh  and  spirit  as  represented 
by  Bellarmin,  and  that  the  pura  naturalia,  or  simple  principles  of 
nature  as  they  existed  in  Adam,  were  without  moral  character ;  and, 
secondly,  to  assert  that  the  nature  of  man  as  created  was  good,  that 

1  Streitwolf,  Libi-i  Symboliei  Ecclesim  Calholicw,  vol.  i.  p.  127. 

2  De  Gratia  Primi  Hominis  2.    Disputationes,  vol.  iv.  p.  7,  c. 
8  Ibid.  5,  —  p.  15,  c.  d. 


§5.]  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  THE  ROMISH   CHURCH.  105 

his  reason  was  enlightened  and  his  will  and  feelings  were  conformed 
to  the  moral  image  of  God.  It  was  natural  in  Adam  to  love  God 
in  the  same  sense  as  it  was  natural  for  him  to  love  himself.  It  was 
as  natural  for  him  to  apprehend  the  glory  of  God  as  it  was  for  him 
to  apprehend  the  beauties  of  creation.  He  was  so  constituted,  so 
created,  that  in  virtue  of  the  nature  which  God  gave  him,  and 
without  any  accessory  ab  extra  gift,  he  was  suited  to  fulfil  the  end 
of  his  being,  namely,  to  glorify  God  and  to  enjoy  Him  forever. 

Objections  to  the  Romish  Doctrine. 

The  obvious  objections  to  the  Romish  doctrine  that  original 
righteousness  was  a  supernatural  gift,  are,  (1.)  That  it  supposes  a 
degrading  view  of  the  original  constitution  of  our  nature.  Accord- 
ing  to  this  doctrine  the  seeds  of  evil  were  implanted  in  the  nature 
of  man  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  God.  It  was  disordered  or 
diseased,  there  was  about  it  what  Bellarmin  calls  a  morbus  or  lan- 
guor^ which  needed  a  remedy.  But  this  is  derogatory  to  the  justice 
and  goodness  of  God,  and  to  the  express  declarations  of  Scripture, 
that  man,  humanity,  human  nature,  was  good.  (2.)  This  doctrine 
is  evidently  founded  on  the  Manichean  principle  of  the  inherent 
evil  of  matter.  It  is  because  man  has  a  material  body,  that  this 
conflict  between  the  flesh  and  spirit,  between  good  and  evil,  is  said 
to  be  unavoidable.  But  this  is  opposed  to  the  word  of  God  and  the 
faith  of  the  Church.  Matter  is  not  evil.  And  there  is  no  neces- 
sary tendency  to  evil  from  the  union  of  the  soul  and  body  which 
requires  to  be  supernaturally  corrected.  (3.)  This  doctrine  as  to 
original  righteousness  arose  out  of  the  Semi-Pelagianism  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  was  designed  to  sustain  it.  The  two  doc- 
trines are  so  related  that  they  stand  or  fall  together.  According 
to  the  theory  in  question,  original  sin  is  the  simple  loss  of  origi- 
nal righteousness.  Humanity  since  the  fall  is  precisely  what  it 
was  before  the  fall,  and  before  the  addition  of  the  supernatural  gift 
of  righteousness.  Bellarmin  ^  says :  "  Non  magis  differt  status  hom- 
inis  post  lapsum  Adas  a  statu  ejusdem  in  purls  naturalibus,  quam 
differat  spoliatus  a  nudo,  neque  deterior  est  humana  natura,  si  cul- 
pam  originalem  detrahas,  neque  magis  ignorantia  et  infirmitate  lab- 
orat,  quam  esset  et  laboraret  in  puris  naturalibus  condita.  Proinde 
corruptio  naturas  non  ex  alicujus  doni  naturalis  carentia,  neque  ex  ali- 
cujus  malae  qualitatis  accessu,  sed  ex  sola  doni  supernaturalis  ob  Adae 
peccatum  amissione  profluxit.''  The  conflict  between  the  flesh  and 
spirit  is  normal  and  original,  and  therefore  not  sinful.     Concupis- 

1  De  Gratia  Primi  Huminis,  c.  5.     Dispulaliones,  vol.  iv.  p.  16,  d,  e. 


106      PART  n.   ch.  v.  — origikal  state  of  man. 

cence,  the  tlieological  term  for  this  rebelHon  of  the  lower  against 
the  higher  elements  of  our  nature,  is  not  of  the  nature  of  sin. 
Andradius  ^  (the  Romish  theologian  against  whom  Chemnitz 
directed  his  Examen  of  the  Council  of  Trent)  lays  down 
the  principle,  "  quod  nihil  habeat  rationem  peccati,  nisi  fiat 
a  volente  et  sciente,"  which  of  course  excludes  concupiscence, 
whetiier  in  the  renewed  or  unrenewed,  from  tlie  category  of 
sin.  Hence,  Bellarmin  says  :  ^  "  Reatus  est  omnino  inseparabilis 
ab  eo,  quod  natura  sua  est  dignum  aeteriia  damnatione,  qua- 
lem  esse  volunt  concupiscentiam  adversarii."  This  concupis- 
cence remains  after  baptism,  or  regeneration,  which  Romanists  say, 
removes  all  sin  ;  and  therefore,  not  being  evil  in  its  own  nature, 
does  not  detract  from  the  merit  of  good  works,  nor  render  perfect 
obedience,  and  even  works  of  supererogation  on  the  part  of  the 
faithful,  impossible.  This  doctrine  of  the  supernatural  character 
of  original  righteousness  as  held  by  Romanists,  is  therefore  inti- 
mately connected  with  their  whole  theological  system  ;  and  is  in- 
compatible with  the  Scriptural  doctrines  not  only  of  the  original 
state  of  man,  but  also  of  sin  and  redemption.  It  will,  however, 
appear  in  the  sequel,  that  neither  the  standards  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  nor  the  Romish  theologians  are  consistent  in  their  views  of 
original  sin  and  its  relation  to  the  loss  of  original  righteousness. 

§  6.  Pelagian  and  Rationalistic  Doctrine. 

According  to  Pelagians  and  Rationalists  man  was  created  a  ra- 
tional free  agent,  but  without  moral  character.  He  was  neither 
righteous  nor  unrighteous,  holy  nor  unholy.  He  had  simply  the 
capacity  of  becoming  either.  Being  endowed  with  reason  and 
free  will,  his  character  depended  upon  the  use  which  he  made  of 
those  endowments.  If  he  acted  right,  he  became  righteous  ;  if  he 
acted  wrong,  he  became  unrighteous.  There  can  be,  according  to 
their  system,  no  such  thing  as  concreated  moral  character,  and 
therefore  they  reject  the  doctrine  of  original  righteousness  as  irra- 
tional. This  view  of  man's  original  state  is  the  necessary  conse- 
quence of  the  assumption  that  moral  character  can  be  predicated 
only  of  acts  of  the  will  or  of  the  subjective  consequences  of  such 
acts.  This  principle  which  precludes  the  possibility  of  original 
righteousness  in  Adam,  precludes  also  the  possibiHty  of  innate, 
hereditary  depravity,  commonly  called  original  sin  ;  and  also  the 
possibility  of  indwelHng  sin,  and  of  habits  of  grace.     It  is  a  princi- 

1  Baur,  Katholicismus  und  Pi-otestanlismus,  Tubingen,  1836,  p.  85,  note. 

2  De  Amissione  Gratia  et  Statu  Peccati,  v.  7 ;  Dlspulationes,  vol.  iv.  p.  287,  a. 


§6.]  PELAGIAN  AND  RATIONALISTIC  DOCTRINE.  107 

pie  therefore  which  necessarily  works  an  entire  change  in  the 
whole  system  of  Christian  doctrine.  It  is  not,  however,  an  ulti- 
mate principle.  It  is  itself  an  inference  from  the  primary  assump- 
tion that  ability  limits  obligation  ;  that  a  man  can  be  neither  praised 
nor  blamed,  neither  rewarded  nor  condemned,  except  for  his  own 
acts  and  self-acquired  character,  which  acts  must  be  within  the 
compass  of  his  ability.  What  is  either  concreated  or  innate,  inher- 
ent or  infused,  is  clearly  not  within  the  power  of  the  will,  and 
therefore  cannot  have  any  moral  character.  As  this  principle  is 
thus  far  reaching  it    ought  to   be  definitively  settled. 

Consciousness  proves  that  Dispositions  as  distinguished  from  Acts 
may  have  Moral  Character. 

By  the  mere  moral  philosopher,  and  by  theologians  whose 
theology  is  a  philosophy,  it  is  assumed  as  an  axiom,  or  intuitive 
truth,  that  a  man  is  responsible  only  for  what  he  has  full  power 
to  do  or  to  avoid.     Plausible  as  this  principle  is,  it  is,  — 

1.  Opposed  to  the  testimony  of  consciousness.  It  is  a  fact  of  con- 
sciousness that  we  do  attribute  moral  character  to  principles  which 
precede  all  voluntary  action  and  which  are  entirely  independent  of 
the  power  of  the  will.  And  it  is  a  fact  capable  of  the  clearest 
demonstration  that  such  is  not  only  the  dictate  of  our  ow- n  individ- 
ual consciousness,  but  also  the  conviction  of  all  men.  If  we  ex- 
amine our  own  consciousness  as  to  the  judgment  which  we  pass 
upon  ourselves,  we  shall  find  that  we  hold  ourselves  responsible 
not  only  for  the  deliberate  acts  of  the  will,  that  is,  for  acts  of  de- 
liberate self-determination,  which  suppose  both  knowledge  and  vo- 
lition, but  also  for  emotional,  impulsive  acts,  which  precede  all 
deliberation  ;  and  not  only  for  such  impulsive  acts,  but  also  for  the 
principles,  dispositions,  or  immanent  states  of  the  mind,  by  which 
its  acts  whether  impulsive  or  deliberate,  are  determined.  When  a 
man  is  convinced  of  sin,  it  is  not  so  much  for  specific  acts  of  trans- 
gression that  his  conscience  condemns  him,  as  for  the  permanent 
states  of  his  mind  ;  his  selfishness,  worldliness,  and  maliciousness  ;  his 
ingratitude,  unbelief,  and  hardness  of  heart  ;  his  want  of  right  affec- 
tions, of  love  to  God,  of  zeal  for  the  Redeemer,  and  of  benevolence 
towards  men.  These  are  not  acts.  They  are  not  states  of  mind 
under  the  control  of  the  will ;  and  yet  in  the  judgment  of  conscience, 
which  we  cannot  silence  or  pervert,  they  constitute  our  character 
and  are  just  ground  of  condemnation.  In  like  manner  whatever 
of  right  dispositions  or  principles  we  discover  within  ourselves, 
whatever  there  is  of  love  to  God,  to  Christ,  or  to  his  people  ;  what- 


108         PART  II.    Ch.  v.  — original   STATE  OF  MAN. 

ever  of  humility,  meekness,  forbearance,  or  of  any  other  virtue ; 
the  testimony  of  consciousness  is,  that  these  dispositions,  which  are 
neither  the  acts  nor  products  of  the  will,  as  far  as  they  exist  within 
us,  constitute  our  character  in  the  sight  of  God  and  man.  Such 
is  not  only  the  testimony  of  consciousness  with  regard  to  our  judg- 
ments of  ourselves,  but  also  as  to  our  judgments  of  other  men. 
When  we  pronounce  a  man  either  good  or  bad,  the  judgment  is 
not  founded  upon  his  acts,  but  upon  his  character  as  revealed  by 
his  acts.  The  terms  good  and  bad,  as  applied  to  men,  are  not  used 
to  express  the  character  of  particular  actions  which  they  perform, 
but  the  character  of  the  abiding  principles,  dispositions,  or  states  of 
mind  which  determine  their  acts,  and  give  assurance  of  what  they 
will  be  in  future.  We  may  look  on  a  good  man  and  know  that 
there  is  something  in  him  which  constitutes  his  character,  and 
which  renders  it  certain  that  he  will  not  blaspheme,  lie,  or  steal ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  that  he  will  endeavour  in  all  things  to  serve 
God  and  do  good  to  men.  In  like  manner  we  may  contemplate  a 
wicked  man  in  the  bosom  of  his  family,  when  every  evil  passion  is 
hushed,  and  when  only  kindly  feelings  are  in  exercise,  and  yet  we 
know  him  to  be  wicked.  That  is,  we  not  only  know  that  he  has 
perpetrated  wicked  actions,  but  that  he  is  inherently  wicked  ;  that 
there  is  in  him  an  evil  nature,  or  abiding  state  of  the  mind,  which 
constitutes  his  real  character  and  determines  his  acts.  When  we 
say  that  a  man  is  a  miser,  we  do  not  mean  simply  that  he  hoards 
money,  or  grinds  the  face  of  the  poor,  but  we  mean  that  he  has  a 
disposition  which  in  time  past  has  led  to  such  acts  and  which  will 
continue  to  produce  them  so  long  as  it  rules  in  his  heart.  The 
Pelagian  doctrine,  therefore,  that  moral  character  can  be  predicated 
only  of  voluntary  acts,  is  contrary  to  the  testimony  of  consciousness. 

Argument  from  the  General  Judgment  of  Men. 

2.  It  may,  however,  be  said  that  our  consciousness  or  moral 
judgments  are  influenced  by  our  Christian  education.  It  is  there- 
fore important  to  observe,  in  the  second  place,  that  this  judgment 
of  our  individual  consciousness  is  confirmed  by  the  universal  judg- 
ment of  our  fellow-men.  This  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  in  all 
known  languages  there  are  words  to  distinguish  between  dispo- 
sitions, principles,  or  habits,  as  permanent  states  of  the  mind,  and 
voluntary  acts.  And  these  dispositions  are  universally  recognized 
as  being  either  good  or  bad.  Language  is  the  product  of  the  com- 
mon consciousness  of  men.  There  could  not  be  such  terms  as 
benevolence,  justice,  integrity,  and   fidelity,  expressing   principles 


§  6.]  PELAGIAN  AND  RATIONALISTIC   DOCTRINE.  109 

which  determine  acts,  and  which  are  not  themselves  acts,  if  men 
did  not  intuitively  recognize  the  fact  that  principles  as  well  as  acts 
may  have  moral  character. 

The  Moral  Character  of  Acts  determined  by  the  Principles 
whence  they  flow. 

3.  So  far  from  its  being  true  that  in  the  judgment  of  men  the 
voluntary  act  alone  constitutes  character,  the  very  opposite  is  true. 
The  character  of  the  act  is  decided  by  the  nature  of  the  principle 
by  which  it  is  determined.  If  a  man  gives  alms,  or  worships  God 
from  a  selfish  principle,  under  the  control  of  a  disposition  to  secure 
the  applause  of  men,  those  acts  instead  of  being  good  are  instinct- 
ively recognized  as  evil.  Indeed,  if  this  Pelagian  or  Rationalistic 
principle  were  true,  there  could  be  no  such  thing  as  character  ; 
not  only  because  individual  acts  have  no  moral  quality  except  such 
as  is  derived  from  the  principle  whence  they  flow,  but  also  because 
character  necessarily  supposes  something  permanent  and  control- 
ling. A  man  without  character  is  a  man  without  principles  ;  i.  e., 
in  whom  there  is  nothing  which  gives  security  as  to  what  his  acts 
will  be. 

Argument  from  Scripture. 

4.  The  Scriptures  in  this,  as  in  all  cases,  recognize  the  validity 
of  the  intuitive  and  universal  judgments  of  the  mind.  They 
everywhere  distinguish  between  principles  and  acts,  and  every- 
where attribute  moral  character  to  the  former,  and  to  acts  only  so 
far  as  they  proceed  from  principles.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  our 
Lord  when  he  says,  "  Either  make  the  tree  good,  and  his  fruit 
good  ;  or  else  make  the  tree  corrupt,  and  his  fruit  corrupt :  for  a 
tree  is  known  by  his  fruit."  (Matt.  xii.  33.)  "  A  good  tree  can- 
not bring  forth  evil  fruit,  neither  can  a  corrupt  tree  bring  forth 
good  fruit."  (Matt.  vii.  18.)  It  is  the  inward,  abiding  character 
of  the  tree  that  determines  the  character  of  the  fruit.  The  fruit 
reveals,  but  does  not  constitute,  the  nature  of  the  tree.  So  it  is, 
he  tells  us,  with  the  human  heart.  "  How  can  ye,  being  evil, 
speak  good  things  ?  For  out  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart  the 
mouth  speaketh.  A  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasure  of  the 
heart,  bringeth  forth  good  things  :  and  an  evil  man,  out  of  the  evil 
treasure,  bringeth  forth  evil  things."  (Matt.  xii.  34,  35.)  A  good 
man,  therefore,  is  one  who  is  inwardly  good  :  who  has  a  good 
heart,  or  nature,  something  within  him  which  being  good  in  itself, 
produces  good  acts.  And  an  evil  man  is  one,  whose  heart,  that  is, 
the  abiding,  controlling  state  of  his  mind,  being  in  itself  evil,  hab- 


110      PART  n.   Ch.  v.  — original  state  of  man. 

itually  does  evil.  It  is  out  of  the  heart  proceed  evil  tlioughts,  mur- 
ders, adulteries,  fornications,  thefts,  false  witness,  and  blasphemies. 
These  terms  include  all  voluntary  acts,  not  only  in  the  sense  of 
deliberate  self-determination,  but  also  in  the  sense  of  spontaneous 
acts.  They  moreover  include  all  conscious  states  of  the  mind.  It 
is,  therefore,  expressly  asserted  by  our  Lord,  that  moral  character 
attaches  to  what  lies  deeper  than  any  acts  of  the  will,  in  the  widest 
sense  of  those  words,  but  also  to  that  which  lies  lower  than  con- 
sciousness. As  the  greater  part  of  our  knowledge  is  treasured  up 
where  consciousness  does  not  reach,  so  the  greater  part  of  what  con- 
stitutes our  character  as  good  or  evil,  is  lower  not  only  than  the 
will  but  even  than  consciousness  itself.  It  is  not  only  however  by 
direct  assertion  that  this  doctrine  is  taught  in  the  Bible.  It  is  con- 
stantly assumed,  and  is  involved  in  some  of  the  most  important 
doctrines  of  the  word  of  God.  It  is  taken  for  granted  in  what  is 
taught  of  the  moral  condition  in  which  men  are  born  into  this 
world.  They  are  said  to  be  conceived  in  sin.  They  are  children 
of  wrath  by  nature.  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  {.  e., 
carnal,  morally  corrupt.  The  Bible  also  speaks  of  indwelling  sin  ; 
of  sin  as  a  principle  which  brings  forth  fruit  unto  death.  It  repre- 
sents regeneration  not  as  an  act  of  the  soul,  but  as  the  production 
of  a  new  nature,  or  holy  principle,  in  the  heart.  The  denial, 
therefore,  that  dispositions  or  principles  as  distinguished  from  acts, 
can  have  a  moral  character,  subverts  some  of  the  most  plainly 
revealed  doctrines  of  the  sacred  Scriptures. 

The  Faith  of  the  Church  on  this  Subject. 

5.  It  is  fair  on  this  subject  to  appeal  to  the  universal  faith  of  the 
Church.  Even  the  Greek  Church,  which  has  the  lowest  form  of 
doctrine  of  any  of  the  great  historical  Christian  communities, 
teaches  that  men  need  regeneration  as  soon  as  they  are  born,  and 
that  by  regeneration  a  change  of  nature  is  effected,  or  a  new  prin- 
ciple of  life  is  infused  into  the  soul.  So  also  the  Latin  Church, 
however  inconsistently,  recognizes  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  in 
question  in  all  her  teachings.  All  who  die  unbaptized,  according  to 
Romanists,  perish  ;  and  by  baptism  not  only  the  guilt,  but  also  the 
pollution  of  sin  is  removed,  and  new  habits  of  grace  are  infused 
into  the  soul.  It  is  needless  to  remark  that  the  Lutheran  and 
Reformed  churches  agree  in  holding  this  important  doctrine,  that 
moral  character  does  not  belong  exclusively  to  voluntary  acts,  but 
extends  to  dispositions,  principles,  or  habits  of  the  mind.  This  is 
involved  in  all  their  authoritative  decisions  concerning  original 
righteousness,  original  sin,  regeneration,  and  sanctification. 


§6.]  PELAGIAN   AND   RATIONALISTIC   DOCTRINE.  Ill 

The  Moral  Character  of  Dispositions  depends  on  their  Nature 
arid  not  on  their  Origin. 

The  second  great  principle  involved  in  the  Scriptural  doctrine 
on  this  subject  is,  that  the  moral  character  of  dispositions  or  habits 
depends  on  their  nature  and  not  on  their  origin.  There  are  some 
who  endeavour  to  take  a  middle  ground  between  the  rationalistic 
and  the  evangelical  doctrines.  They  admit  that  moral  character 
may  be  predicated  of  dispositions  as  distinguished  from  voluntary 
acts,  but  they  insist  that  this  can  only  be  done  when  such  dispo- 
sitions have  been  self-acquired.  They  acknowledge  that  the  fre- 
quent repetition  of  certain  acts  has  a  tendency  to  produce  an 
abiding  disposition  to  perform  them.  This  is  acknowledged  to  be 
true  not  only  in  regard  to  the  indulgence  of  sensual  appetites,  but 
also  in  regard  to  purely  mental  acts.  Not  only  does  the  frequent 
use  of  intoxicating  liquors  produce  an  inordinate  craving  for  them, 
but  the  frequent  exercise  of  pride  or  indulgence  of  vanity,  con- 
firms and  strengthens  a  proud  and  vainglorious  spirit,  or  state  of 
mind  ;  which  state  of  mind,  when  thus  produced,  it  is  admitted, 
goes  to  determine  or  constitute  the  man's  moral  character.  But 
they  deny  that  a  man  can  be  responsible  for  any  disposition,  or 
state  of  mind,  which  is  not  the  result  of  his  own  voluntary  agency. 
In  opposition  to  this  doctrine,  and  in  favour  of  the  position  that  the 
moral  character  of  dispositions,  or  principles,  does  not  depend  upon 
their  origin,  that  whether  concreated,  innate,  infused,  or  self-ac- 
quired they  are  good  or  bad  according  to  their  nature,  the  arguments 
are  the  same  in  kind  as  those  presented  under  the  preceding  head. 

1.  The  first  is  derived  from  our  consciousness.  In  our  judg- 
ments of  ourselves  the  question  is  what  we  are,  and  not  how  we 
became  what  we  know  ourselves  to  be.  If  conscious  that  we  do 
not  lyve  God  as  we  ought ;  that  we  are  worldly,  selfish,  proud,  or 
suspicious,  it  is  no  relief  to  the  consciousness,  that  such  has  been 
our  character  from  the  beginning.  We  may  know  that  we  were 
born  with  these  evil  dispositions,  but  they  are  not  on  that  account 
less  evil  in  the  sight  of  conscience.  We  groan  under  the  burden 
of  hereditary,  or  of  indwelling  sin,  as  deeply  and  as  intelligently  as 
under  tiie  pressure  of  our  self-acquired  evil  dispositions.  So  also 
in  our  instinctive  judgments  of  other  men.  If  a  man  be  addicted 
to  frivolous  pursuits,  we  pronounce  him  a  frivolous  man,  without 
stopping  to  inquire  whether  his  disposition  be  innate,  derived  by 
inheritance  from  his  ancestors,  or  whether  it  was  acquired.  On 
the  contrary,  if  he  manifests  from  his  youth  a  disposition  for  the 


k 


112         PART  II.     Ch.  v.  — original   STATE   OF  MAN. 

acquisition  of  knowledge,  he  is  an  object  of  respect,  no  matter 
whence  that  disposition  was  derived.  The  same  is  true  with  re- 
gard to  amiable  or  unamiable  dispositions.  It  cannot  be  denied  that 
there  is  a  great  difference  in  men  in  this  respect.  Some  are  morose, 
irritable,  and  unsocial  in  their  dispositions,  others  are  directly 
the  reverse.  The  one  class  is  attractive,  the  other  repulsive  ;  the 
one  the  object  of  affection  ;  the  other,  of  dislike.  The  instinctive 
judgment  of  the  mind  is  the  same  with  regard  to  dispositions  more 
clearly  moral  in  their  nature.  One  man  is  selfish,  another  gen- 
erous ;  one  is  malicious,  anotlier  benevolent ;  one  is  upright  and 
honourable,  another  deceitful  and  mean.  They  may  be  born  with 
these  distinctive  traits  of  character,  and  such  traits  beyond  doubt 
are  in  numerous  cases  innate  and  often  hereditary,  and  yet  we  are 
conscious  that  our  judgment  regarding  them  and  those  to  whom 
they  belong  is  entirely  independent  of  the  question  whether  such 
dispositions  are  natural  or  acquired.  It  is  admitted  that  nations  as 
well  as  tribes  and  families,  have  their  distinctive  characteristics, 
and  that  these  characteristics  are  not  only  physical  and  mental,  but 
also  social  and  moral.  Some  tribes  are  treacherous  and  cruel. 
Some  are  mild  and  confiding.  Some  are  addicted  to  gain,  others 
to  war.  Some  are  sensual,  some  intellectual.  We  instinctively 
judge  of  each  according  to  its  character  ;  we  like  or  dislike,  ap- 
prove or  disapprove,  without  asking  ourselves  any  questions  as  to 
the  origin  of  these  distinguishing  characteristics.  And  if  we  do 
raise  that  question,  although  we  are  forced  to  answer  it  by  admit- 
ting that  these  dispositions  are  innate  and  hereditary,  and  that  they 
are  not  self-acquired  by  the  individual  whose  character  they  con- 
stitute, we  nevertheless,  and  none  the  less,  approve  or  condemn 
them  according  to  their  nature.  This  is  the  instinctive  and  neces- 
sary, and  therefore  the  correct,  judgment  of  the  mind. 

This  the  Oommon  Rule  of  Judgment. 
2.  As  in  water  face  answereth  to  face,  so  the  heart  of  man  to 
man.  What  we  find  revealed  in  our  own  consciousness  we  find 
manifested  as  the  consciousness  of  our  fellow  men.  It  is  the 
instinctive  or  intuitive  judgment  of  all  men  that  moral  dispositions 
derive  their  character  from  their  nature,  and  not  from  their  origin. 
In  the  ordinary  language  of  men,  to  say  that  a  man  is  naturally 
proud  or  malicious  is  not  an  extenuation,  but  an  aggravation.  The 
more  deeply  these  evil  principles  are  seated  in  his  nature,  and  the 
less  tliey  depend  upon  circumstances  or  voluntary  action,  the  more 
profound  is  our  abhorrence  and  the  more  severe  is  our  condem- 


§6.]  PELAGIAN   AND   RATIONALISTIC   DOCTRINE.  113 

nation.  The  Irish  people  have  always  been  remarkable  for  their 
fidelity  ;  the  English  for  honesty  ;  the  Germans  for  truthfulness. 
These  national  traits,  as  revealed  in  individuals,  are  not  the  effect 
of  self-discipline.  They  are  innate,  hereditary  dispositions,  as  obvi- 
ously as  the  physical,  mental,  or  emotional  peculiarities  by  which 
one  people  is  distinguished  from  another.  And  yet  by  the  common 
judgment  of  men  this  fi^ct  in  no  degree  detracts  from  the  moral 
character  of  these  dispositions. 

The  Testimony  of  Scripture. 

3.  This  also  is  the  plain  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  The  Scriptures 
teach  that  God  made  man  upright ;  that  the  angels  were  created 
holy,  for  the  unholy  angels  are  those  which  kept  not  their  first 
estate  ;  that  since  the  fall  men  are  bom  in  sin  ;  that  by  the  power 
of  God,  and  not  by  the  power  of  the  will,  the  heart  is  changed,  and 
new  dispositions  are  implanted  in  our  nature ;  and  yet  the  Bible 
always  speaks  of  the  sinful  as  sinful  and  worthy  of  condemnation, 
whether,  as  in  the  case  of  Adam,  that  sinfulness  was  self-acquired, 
or,  as  in  the  case  of  his  posterity,  it  is  a  hereditary  evil.  It  always 
speaks  of  the  holy  as  holy,  whether  so  created  as  were  the  angels, 
or  made  so  by  the  supernatural  power  of  the  Spirit  in  regeneration 
and  sanctification.  And  in  so  doing  the  Bible,  as  we  have  seen, 
does  not  contradict  the  intuitive  judgment  of  the  human  mind, 
but  sanctions  and  confirms  that  judgment. 

The  Faith  of  the  Church. 

4.  It  need  hardly  be  added  that  such  also  is  the  faith  of  the  Church 
universal.  All  Christian  churches  receive  the  doctrines  of  original 
sin  and  regeneration  in  a  form  which  involves  not  only  the  principle 
that  dispositions,  as  distinguished  from  acts,  may  have  a  moral  char- 
acter, but  also  that  such  character  belongs  to  them  whether  they  be 
innate,  acquired,  or  infused.  It  is,  therefore,  most  unreasonable 
to  assume  the  ground  that  a  man  can  be  responsible  only  for  his 
voluntary  acts,  or  for  their  subjective  effects,  when  our  own  con- 
sciousness, the  universal  judgment  of  men,  the  word  of  God,  and 
the  Church  universal,  so  distinctly  assert  the  contrary.  It  is  a 
matter  of  surprise  how  subtle  is  the  poison  of  the  principle  which 
has  now  been  considered.  It  is  not  only  the  fundamental  principle 
of  Pelagianism,  but  it  is  often  asserted  bv  orthodox  theologians  who 
do  not  carry  it  out  to  its  legitimate  results,  but  who,  nevertheless, 

tallow  it  injuriously  to  modify  their  views  of  some  of  the  most  impor- 
tant doctrines  of  the  Bible.    On  the  assumption  that  no  man  can  be 
VOL.  II.  8 

; 


114         PART  II.     Cii.   v.— ORIGINAL   STATE    OF  MAN. 

judged,  can  be  either  justified  or  condemned  except  on  the  ground 
of  his  self-acquired  personal  character,  they  teach  that  there  can  be 
no  immediate  imputation  of  the  sin  of  Adam  or  of  the  righteousness 
of  Christ ;  that  the  only  ground  of  condemnation  must  be  our  self- 
acquired  sinfulness,  and  the  only  ground  of  justification  our  sub- 
jective righteousness  ;  thus  subverting  two  of  the  main  pillars  of 
evangelical  truth. 

Objections  Considered. 

The  difficulty  on  this  subject  arises  in  great  measure  from  con- 
founding two  distinct  thinss.  It  is  one  thino;  that  a  creatui-e  should 
be  treated  according  to  his  character ;  and  quite  another  thing  to 
account  for  his  having  that  character.  If  a  creature  is  holy  he  will 
be  regarded  and  treated  as  holy.  Jf  he  is  sinful,  he  will  be  regarded 
and  treated  as  sinful.  If  God  created  Adam  holy  He  could  not 
treat  him  as  unholy.  If  He  created  Satan  sinful,  He  would  regard 
him  as  sinful ;  and  if  men  are  born  in  sin  they  cannot  be  regarded 
as  free  from  sin.  The  difficulty  is  not  in  God's  treating  liis  creatures 
according  to  their  true  character,  but  in  reconciling  with  his  holiness 
and  justice  that  a  sinful  character  should  be  acquired  without  the 
creature's  personal  agency.  If  God  had  created  Satan  sinful  he 
would  be  sinful,  but  we  should  not  know  how  to  reconcile  it  with 
the  character  of  God  that  he  should  be  so  created.  And  if  men 
are  born  in  sin  the  difficulty  is  not  in  their  being  regarded  and 
treated  as  sinful,  but  in  their  beino;  thus  born.  The  Bible  teaches 
us  the  solution  of  this  difficulty.  It  reveals  to  us  the  principle  of 
representation,  on  the  ground  of  which  the  penalty  of  Adam's 
sin  has  come  upon  his  posterity  as  the  reward  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness comes  upon  his  people.  In  the  one  case  the  penalty  brings 
subjective  sinfulness,  and  in  the  other  the  reward  brings  subjective 
holiness. 

It  is  a  common  objection  to  the  doctrine  that  holiness  can  be 
concreated  and  sinfulness  hereditary,  that  it  makes  sin  and  holiness 
substances.  There  is  nothing  in  the  soul,  it  is  said,  but  its  substance 
and  its  acts.  If  sin  or  holiness  be  predicated  of  anything  but  the 
acts  of  the  soul  it  must  be  predicated  of  its  substance  ;  and  thus  we 
have  the  doctrine  of  physical  holiness  and  physical  depravity.  The 
assumption  on  which  this  objection  rests  is  not  only  an  arbitrary 
one,  but  it  is  obviously  erroneous.  There  are  in  the  soul,  (1.)  Its 
substance.  (2.)  Its  essential  ])roperties  or  attributes,  as  reason, 
sensibility,  and  will,  without  which  it  ceases  to  be  a  human  soul. 
(3.)  Its  constitutional  dispositions,  or  natural  tendencies  to  exercise 


§6.]  PELAGIAN   AND   RATIONALISTIC   DOCTRINE.  115 

certain  feelings  and  volitions,  such  as  self-love,  the  sense  of  justice, 
the  social  principle,  parental  and  filial  affection.  These,  although 
not  essential  to  man,  are  nevertheless  found  in  all  men,  before  and 
after  the  fall.  (4.)  The  peculiar  dispositions  of  individual  men, 
which  are  accidental,  that  is,  they  do  not  belong  to  humanity  as  such. 
They  may  be  present  or  absent ;  they  may  be  innate  or  acquired. 
Such  are  the  taste  for  music,  painting,  or  poetry  ;  and  the  skill  of 
the  artist  or  the  mechanist ;  such  also  are  covetousness,  pride, 
vanity,  and  the  like  ;  and  such,  too,  are  the  graces  of  the  Spirit, 
humility,  meekness,  gentleness,  faith,  love,  etc.  As  the  taste  for 
music  is  neither  an  act  nor  a  substance,  so  pride  is  neither  the  one 
nor  the  other.  Nor  is  the  maternal  instinct  an  act ;  nor  is  benevo- 
lence or  covetousness.  These  are  immanent,  abiding  states  of  the 
mind.  They  belong  to  the  man,  whether  they  are  active  or  dormant, 
whether  he  is  awake  or  asleep.  There  is  something  in  the  sleeping 
artist  which  renders  it  certain  that  he  will  enjoy  and  execute  what 
other  men  can  neither  perceive  nor  do.  And  that  something  is 
neither  the  essence  of  his  soul  nor  an  act.  It  is  a  natural  or  acquired 
taste  and  skill.  So  there  is  something  in  the  sleeping  saint  which 
is  neither  essence  nor  act,  which  renders  it  certain  that  he  will  love 
and  serve  God.  As  therefore  there  are  in  the  soul  dispositions, 
principles,  habits,  and  tastes  which  cannot  be  regarded  as  mere  acts, 
and  yet  do  not  belong  to  the  essence  of  the  soul,  it  is  plain  that  the 
doctrine  of  original  or  concreated  righteousness  is  not  liable  to  the 
objection  of  making  moral  character  a  substance. 

Pelagians  teach  that  Man  was  created  Mortal. 

The  second  distinguishing  feature  of  the  Pelagian  or  Rationalistic 
doctrine  as  to  man's  original  state,  is  that  man  was  created  mortal. 
By  this  it  Is  meant  to  deny  that  death  Is  the  consequence  or  penalty 
of  transgression  ;  and  to  affirm  that  Adam  was  liable  to  death,  and 
certainly  would  have  died  In  virtue  of  the  original  constitution  of 
his  nature.  The  arguments  urged  in  support  of  this  doctrine  are, 
(1.)  That  the  corporeal  organization  of  Adam  was  not  adapted  to 
last  forever.  It  was  in  its  very  nature  perlsiiable.  It  required  to 
be  constantly  refreshed  by  sleep  and  renewed  by  food,  and  would 
by  a  natural  and  Inevitable  process  have  grown  old  and  decayed. 
(2.)  That  all  other  animals  living  on  the  earth  evince  In  their  con- 
stitution and  structure  that  they  were  not  intended  by  their  Creator 
to  live  on  Indefinitely.  They  were  created  male  and  female,  designed 
to  propagate  their  race.  This  proves  that  a  succession  of  invllvld- 
uals,  and  not  the  continued  existence  of  the  same  Individuals,  was 


116         PART  II.     Ch.   v.  — original   STATE   OF   MAN. 

the  plan  of  the  Creator.  As  this  is  true  of  man  as  well  as  of  other 
animals,  it  is  evident,  thej  say,  that  man  also  was  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  irrespective  of  sin,  destined  to  die.  (3.)  An  argument 
is  drawn  from  what  the  Apostle  teaches  in  1  Cor.  xv.  42-50. 
It  is  thei'e  said  that  the  first  man  is  of  the  earth  earthy  ;  that  he 
had  a  natural  body  (a  o-w/xa  xpuxiKov)  as  opposed  to  a  spiritual  body 
(the  0-w/x.a  TTveu/xartKov)  ;  that  the 'former  is  not  adapted  to  immor- 
tality, that  flesh  and  blood,  i.  e.,  the  a-w/xa  {{rvxixov,  such  as  Adam  had 
when  created,  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  From  this 
account  it  is  inferred  that  Adam  was  not  created  for  immortality, 
but  was  originally  invested  with  a  body  from  its  nature  destined  to 
decay. 

Answer  to  the  Pelagian  Arguments. 

With  regard  to  this  subject  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  there  are 
two  distinct  points  to  be  considered.  First,  whether  Adam  would 
have  died  had  he  not  sinned ;  and  second,  whether  his  body  as  orig- 
inally formed  was  adapted  to  an  immortal  state  of  existence.  As 
to  the  former  there  can  be  no  doubt.  It  is  expressly  asserted  in 
Scripture  that  death  is  the  wages  of  sin.  In  the  threatening,  "  In 
the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die,"  it  is  plainly 
implied  that  if  he  did  not  eat  he  should  not  die.  It  is  clear  there- 
fore from  the  Scriptures  that  death  is  the  penal  consequence  of  sin, 
and  would  not  have  been  inflicted,  had  not  our  fii'st  parents  trans- 
gressed. The  second  point  is  much  less  clear,  and  less  important. 
According  to  one  view  adopted  by  many  of  the  fathers,  Adam  was 
to  pass  his  probation  in  the  earthly  paradise,  and  if  obedient,  was 
to  be  translated  to  the  heavenly  paradise,  of  which  the  earthly  was 
the  type.  According  to  Luther,  the  effect  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree 
of  life  of  which  our  first  parents  would  have  been  permitted  to  eat 
had  they  not  sinned,  would  have  been  to  preserve  their  bodies  in 
perpetual  youth.  According  to  others,  the  body  of  Adam  and  the 
bodies  of  his  posterity,  had  he  maintained  his  integrity,  would  have 
undei'gone  a  change  analogous  to  that  which,  the  Apostle  teaches 
us,  awaits  those  who  shall  be  alive  at  the  second  coming  of  Christ. 
They  shall  not  die,  but  they  all  shall  be  changed  ;  the  corruptible 
shall  put  on  incorruption,  and  the  mortal  shall  put  on  immortality. 
Two  things  are  certain,  first,  that  if  Adam  had  not  sinned  he  would 
not  have  died  ;  and  secondly,  that  if  the  Apostle,  when  he  says 
we  have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthly,  means  that  our  present 
bodies  are  like  the  body  of  Adam  as  originally  constituted,  then 
his  body  no  less  than  ours,  required  to  be  changed  to  fit  it  for  im- 
mortality. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

COVENANT   OF  WORKS. 

God  having  created  man  after  his  own  image  in  knowledge, 
righteousness,  and  holiness,  entered  into  a  covenant  of  life  with 
him,  upon  condition  of  perfect  obedience,  forbidding  him  to  eat  of 
the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  upon  the  pain  of  death. 

According  to  this  statement,  (1.)  God  entered  into  a  covenant 
with  Adam.  (2.)  The  promise  annexed  to  that  covenant  was 
life.  (3.)  The  condition  was  perfect  obedience.  (4.)  Its  penalty 
was  death. 

§  1.   God  entered  into  Covenant  with  Adam. 

This  statement  does  not  rest  upon  any  express  declaration  of  the 
Scriptures.  It  is,  however,  a  concise  and  correct  mode  of 
asserting  a  plain  Scriptural  fact,  namely,  that  God  made  to 
Adam  a  promise  suspended  upon  a  condition,  and  attached  to  dis- 
obedience a  certain  penalty.  This  is  what  in  Scriptural  language 
is  meant  by  a  covenant,  and  this  is  all  that  is  meant  by  the  term 
as  here  used.  Although  the  word  covenant  is  not  used  in  Genesis, 
and  does  not  elsewhere,  in  any  clear  passage,  occur  in  reference  to 
the  transaction  there  recorded,  yet  inasmuch  as  the  plan  of  salvation 
is  constantly  represented  as  a  New  Covenant,  new,  not  merely  in 
antithesis  to  that  made  at  Sinai,  but  new  in  reference  to  all  legal 
covenants  whatever,  it  is  plain  that  the  Bible  does  represent  the 
arrangement  made  with  Adam  as  a  truly  federal  transaction.  The 
Scriptures  know  notliing  of  any  other  than  two  methods  of  at- 
taining eternal  life  :  the  one  that  which  demands  perfect  obe- 
dience, and  the  other  that  which  demands  faith.  If  the  latter  is 
called  a  covenant,  the  former  is  declared  to  be  of  the  same  nature. 
It  is  of  great  importance  that  the  Scriptural  form  of  presenting 
truth  should  be  retained.  Rationalism  was  introduced  into,  the 
Church  under  the  guise  of  a  philosophical  statement  of  the  truths 
of  the  Bible  free  from  the  mere  outward  form  in  which  the  sacred 
writers,  trained  in  Judaism,  had  presented  them.  On  tliis  ground 
the  federal  system,  as  it  was  called,  was  discarded.     On  the  same 


118       PART  II.    Ch.   VI.  — the   covenant   OF   WORKS. 

ground  the  prophetic,  priestly,  and  kingly  offices  of  Christ  were 
pronounced  a  cumbrous  and  unsatisfactory  form  under  which  to 
set  forth  his  work  as  our  Redeemer.  And  then  the  sacrificial 
character  of  his  death,  and  all  idea  of  atonement  were  rejected  as 
mere  Jewisli  drapery.  Thus,  by  the  theory  of  accommodation, 
every  distinctive  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  was  set  aside,  and 
Christianity  reduced  to  Deism.  It  is,  therefore,  far  more  than  a 
mere  matter  of  method  tliat  is  involved  in  adhering  to  the  Scrip- 
tural form  of  presenting  Scriptural  truths. 

God  then  did  enter  into  a  covenant  with  Adam.  That  cove- 
nant is  sometimes  called  a  covenant  of  life,  because  life  was  prom- 
ised as  the  reward  of  obedience.  Sometimes  it  is  called  the  cov- 
enant of  works,  because  works  were  the  condition  on  which  that 
promise  was  suspended,  and  because  it  is  thus  distinguished  from 
the  new  covenant  which  promises  life  on  condition  of  faith. 

§  2.  The  Promise. 

The  reward  promised  to  Adam  on  condition  of  his  obedience, 
was  life.  (1.)  This  is  involved  in  the  threatening  :  "  In  the  day 
that  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die."  It  is  plain  that 
this  involved  the  assurance  that  he  should  not  die,  if  he  did  not  eat. 
(2.)  This  is  confirmed  by  innumerable  passages  and  by  the  gen- 
eral drift  of  Scripture,  in  which  it  is  so  plainly  and  so  variously 
taught,  that  life  was,  by  the  ordinance  of  God,  connected  with 
obedience.  "  This  do  and  thou  shalt  live."  "  The  man  that 
doeth  them  shall  live  by  them."  This  is  the  uniform  mode  in 
which  the  Bible  speaks  of  that  law  or  covenant  under  which  man 
by  the  constitution  of  his  nature  and  by  the  ordinance  of  God,  was 
placed.  (3.)  As  the  Scriptures  everywhere  present  God  as  a  judge 
or  moral  ruler,  it  follows  of  necessity  from  that  representation,  that 
his  rational  creatures  will  be  dealt  with  according  to  the  principles 
of  justice.  If  there  be  no  transgression  there  will  be  no  punish- 
ment. And  those  who  continue  holy  thereby  continue  in  the  fa- 
vour and  fellowship  of  him  whose  favour  is  life,  and  Avhose  loving- 
kindness  is  better  than  life.  (4.)  And  finally,  holiness,  or  as  the 
Apostle  expi-esses  it,  to  be  spiritually  minded,  is  life.  There  can 
therefore  be  no  doubt,  that  had  Adam  continued  in  holiness,  he 
would  have  enjoyed  that  life  which  flows  from  the  favour  of  God. 

The  life  thus  promised  included  the  happy,  holy,  and  immortal 
existence  of  the  soul  and  body.  This  is  plain.  (1.)  Because  the 
life  promised  was  that  suited  to  the  being  to  whom  the  promise  was 
made.     But  the  life  suited  to  man  as   a  moral  and  intellio-ent   be- 


§3.]  CONDITION   OF   THE    COVENANT.  119 

ing,  composed  of  soul  and  body,  includes  the  happy,  holy,  and  im- 
mortal existence  of  his  whole  nature.  (2.)  The  life  of  which  the 
Scriptures  everywhere  speak  as  connected  with  obedience,  is  that 
which,  as  just  stated,  flows  from  the  favour  and  fellowship  of  God, 
and  includes  glory,  honour,  and  immortality,  as  the  Apostle  teaches 
us  in  Romans  ii.  7.  (3.)  The  life  secured  by  Christ  for  his  people 
was  the  life  forfeited  by  sin.  But  the  life  which  the  believer 
derives  from  Christ  is  spiritual  and  eternal  life,  the  exaltation  and 
complete  blessedness  of  his  whole  nature,  both  soul  and  body. 

§  3.    Condition  of  the  Covenant. 

The  condition  of  the  covenant  made  with  Adam  is  said  in  the 
symbols  of  our  church  to  be  perfect  obedience.  That  that  state- 
ment is  correct  may  be  inferred  (1.)  From  the  nature  of  the  case 
and  from  the  general  principles  clearly  revealed  in  the  word  of 
God.  Such  is  the  nature  of  God,  and  such  the  relation  which  He 
sustains  to  his  moral  creatures,  that  sin,  the  transgression  of  the 
divine  law,  must  involve  the  destruction  of  the  fellowship  between 
man  and  his  Creator,  and  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  displeas- 
ure. The  Apostle  therefore  says,  that  he  who  offends  in  one 
point,  who  breaks  one  precept  of  the  law  of  God,  is  guilty  of  the 
wliole.  (2.)  It  is  everywhere  assumed  in  the  Bible,  that  the  con- 
dition of  acceptance  under  the  law  is  perfect  obedience.  "  Cursed 
is  every  one  who  continueth  not  in  all  thing-s  written  in  the  book 
of  the  law  to  do  them."  This  is  not  a  peculiarity  of  the  Mosaic 
economy,  but  a  declaration  of  a  principle  which  applies  to  all  di- 
vine laws.  (3.)  The  whole  argument  of  the  Apostle  in  his  epistles 
to  the  Romans  and  to  the  Galatians,  is  founded  on  the  assumption 
that  the  law  demands  perfect  obedience.  If  that  be  not  granted, 
his  whole  argument  falls  to  the  ground. 

The  specific  command  to  Adam  not  to  eat  of  a  certain  tree,  was 
therefore  not  the  only  command  he  was  required  to  obey.  It  was 
given  simply  to  be  the  outward  and  visible  test  to  determine 
whether  he  was  willing  to  obey  God  in  all  things.  Created  holy, 
with  all  his  affections  pure,  there  was  the  more  reason  that  the  test 
of  his  obedience  should  be  an  outward  and  positive  command ; 
something  wrong  simply  because  it  was  forbidden,  and  not  evil  in 
its  own  nature.  It  would  thus  be  seen  that  Adam  obeyed  for  the 
sake  of  obeying.  His  obedience  was  more  directly  to  God,  and 
not  to  his  own  reason. 

The  question  whether  perpetual,  as  well  as  perfect  obedience 
was  the  condition  of  the  covenant  made  with  Adam,  is  probably  to 


120      PART  U.     Ch.  VI.  — the   covenant   OF   WORKS. 

be'  answered  in  the  negative.  It  seems  to  be  reasonable  in  itself 
and  plainly  implied  in  the  Scriptures  that  all  rational  creatures 
have  a  definite  period  of  probation.  If  faithful  during  that  period 
they  are  confirmed  in  their  integrity,  and  no  longer  exposed  to  the 
danger  of  apostasy.  Thus  we  read  of  the  angels  wlio  kept  not 
their  first  estate,  and  of  those  who  did.  Those  who  remained 
faithful  have  continued  in  holiness  and  in  the  favour  of  God.  It  is 
therefore  to  be  inferred  that  had  Adam  continued  obedient  during 
the  period  allotted  to  his  probation,  neither  he  nor  any  of  his  pos- 
terity would  have  been  ever  exposed  to  the  danger  of  sinning. 

§  4.   The  Penalty. 

The  penalty  attached  to  the  covenant  i»  expressed  by  the  com- 
prehensive tei'm  death.  "  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou 
shalt  surely  die."  That  this  does  not  refer  to  the  mere  dissolution 
of  the  body,  is  plain.  (1.)  Because  the  word  death,  as  used  in  Scrip- 
ture in  reference  to  the  consequences  of  transgression,  includes  all 
penal  evil.  The  wages  of  sin  is  death.  The  soul  that  sinneth,  it 
shall  die.  Any  and  every  form  of  evil,  therefore,  which  is  inflicted 
as  the  punishment  of  sin,  is  comprehended  under  tlie  word  death. 
(2.)  The  death  threatened  was  the  opposite  of  the  life  promised. 
But  the  life  promised,  as  we  have  seen,  includes  all  that  is  involved 
in  the  happy,  holy,  and  immortal  existence  of  the  soul  and  body  ; 
and  therefore  death  must  include  not  only  all  the  miseries  of  this  life 
and  the  dissolution  of  the  body,  but  also  all  that  is  meant  by  spirit- 
ual and  eternal  death.  (3.)  God  is  the  life  of  the  soul.  His  favour 
and  fellowship  with  him,  are  essential  to  its  holiness  and  happiness. 
If  his  favour  be  forfeited,  the  inevitable  consequences  are  the  death 
of  the  soul,  i.  g.,  its  loss  of  spiritual  life,  and  unending  sinfulness 
and  misery.  (4.)  The  nature  of  the  penalty  threatened  is  learned 
from  its  infliction.  The  consequences  of  Adam's  sin  were  the  loss 
of  the  image  and  favour  of  God  and  all  the  evils  which  flowed 
from  that  loss.  (5.)  Finally,  the  death  which  was  incurred  by  the 
sin  of  our  first  parents,  is  that  from  which  we  are  redeemed  by 
Christ.  Christ,  however,  does  not  merely  deliver  the  body  from 
the  grave,  he  saves  the  soul  from  spiritual  and  eternal  death  ;  and 
therefore  spiritual  and  eternal  death,  together  with  tlie  dissolution 
of  the  body  and  all  the  miseries  of  this  life,  were  included  in  the 
penalty  originally  attached  to  the  covenant  of  works.  In  the  day 
in  which  Adam  ate  the  forbidden  fruit  he  did  die.  The  penalty 
threatened  was  not  a  momentary  infliction  but  permanent  subjec- 
tion to  all  the  evils  which  flow  from  the  righteous  displeasure  of 
God. 


§5.]  THE  PARTIES.  121 

§  5.    The  Parties  to  the  Covenant  of  Works. 

It  lies  in  the  nature  of  a  covenant  that  there  must  be  two  or 
more  parties.    A  covenant  is  not  of  one.     The  parties  to  the  orioji- 
nal  covenant  were  God  and  Adam.     Adam,  however,  acted  not  in 
his  individual  capacity  but  as  the  head  and  representative  of  his 
whole  race.     This  is  plain.      (1.)   Because  everything  said  to  him 
had  as  much  reference  to  his  posterity  as  to  Adam  himself.    Every- 
thing granted  to  him  was  granted  to  them.     Everything  promised 
to  him  was  pi'omised  to  them.    And  everything  threatened  against 
him,  in  case  of  transgression,  was  threatened  against  them.     God 
did  not  give  the  earth  to  Adam  for  him  alone,  but  as  the  heritage 
of  his  race.      The  dominion  over  the  lower  animals  with  which 
he  was  invested  belonged  equally  to  his  descendants.     The  prom- 
ise of  life  embraced  them  as  well  as  him  ;  and  the  threatening  of 
death  concerned  them  as  Avell  as  him.     (2.)  In  the  second  place,  it 
is  an  outstanding  undeniable  fact,  that  the  penalty  which  Adam 
incurred  has  fallen  upon  his  whole  race.     The  earth  is  cursed  to 
them  as  it  was  to  him.     They  must  earn  their  bread  by  the  sweat 
of  their  brows.     The  pains  of  childbirth  are  the  common  heritage 
of  all  the  daughters  of  Eve.     All  men  are  subject  to  disease  and 
death.     All  are  born  in  sin,  destitute  of  the  moral  image  of  God. 
There  is  not  an  evil  consequent  on  the  sin  of  Adam  which  does  not 
affect  his  race  as  much  as  it  affected  him.     (3.)  Not  only  did  the 
ancient  Jews  infer  the  representative  character  of  Adam  from  the 
record  given  in  Genesis,  but  the  inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment  give    this   doctrine    the    sanction    of  divine  authority.      In 
Adam,  says  the  Apostle,  all  died.     The  sentence  of  condemnation, 
he  teaches  us,  passed  on  all  men  for  one  offence.     By  the  offence 
of  one  all  were  made  sinners.     (4.)   This  great  fact  is  made  the 
ground  on  which  the  whole  plan  of  redemption  is  founded.    As  we 
fell  in  Adam,  we  are  saved  in  Christ.     To  deny  the  principle  in  the 
one  case,  is  to  deny  it  in  the  other  ;  for  the  two  are  inseparably 
united  in  the  representations  of  Scripture.     (5.)  The  principle  in- 
volved in  the  headship  of  Adam  underlies  all  the  religious  institu- 
tions ever  ordained  by  God  for  men  ;  all  his  providential  dealings 
with  our  race  ;  and  even  the  distributions  of  the  saving  influences 
of  his  Spirit.     It  is  therefore  one  of  the  fundamental  principles 
both  of  natural  and  of  revealed  religion.    (6.)  What  is  thus  clearly 
revealed  in  the  word  and  providence  of  God,  finds  a  response  in 
the  very  constitution  of  our  nature.     All  men  are  led  as  it  were 
instinctively  to  recognize  the  validity  of  this  principle  of  representa- 


122      PART  II.     Ch.   VI.  — the   covenant   OF  WORKS. 

tion.  Rulers  represent  their  people ;  parents  their  children ; 
guardians  their  wards.  All  these  considerations  are  in  place  here, 
when  the  nature  of  the  covenant  of  works,  and  the  parties  to  that 
covenant  are  under  discussion,  although  of  course  they  must  come 
up  again  to  be  more  fully  examined,  when  we  have  to  speak  of  the 
effects  of  Adam's  sin  upon  his  posterity.  Men  may  dispute  as  to 
the  grounds  of  the  headship  of  Adam,  but  the  fact  itself  can  hardly 
be  questioned  by  those  who  recognize  the  authority  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. It  has  therefore  entered  into  the  faith  of  all  Christian 
churches,  and  is  more  or  less  clearly  presented  in  all  their  author- 
ized symbols. 

§  6.  Perpe-tuity  of  the  Covenant  of  WorTcs. 

If  Adam  acted  not  only  for  himself  but  also  for  his  posterity, 
that  fact  determines  the  question.  Whether  the  covenant  of  works 
be  still  in  force.  In  the  obvious  sense  of  the  terms,  to  say  that 
men  are  still  under  that  covenant,  is  to  say  that  they  are  still  on 
probation;  that  the  race  did  not  fall  when  Adam  fell.  But  if 
Adam  acted  as  the  head  of  the  wliole  race,  then  all  men  stood 
their  probation  in  him,  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression. 
Tlie  Scriptures,  therefore,  teach  that  we  come  into  the  world  under 
condemnation.  We  are  by  nature,  i.  e.,  as  we  were  born,  the 
children  of  wrath.  This  fact  is  assumed  in  all  the  provisions  of  the 
gospel  and  in  all  the  institutions  of  our  religion.  Children  are 
required  to  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sin.  But  while  the 
Pelagian  doctrine  is  to  be  rejected,  which  teaches  that  each  man 
comes  into  the  world  free  from  sin  and  free  from  condemnation, 
and  stands  his  probation  in  his  own  person,  it  is  nevertheless  true 
that  where  there  is  no  sin  there  is  no  condemnation.  Hence  our 
Lord  said  to  the  young  man,  "  This  do  and  thou  shalt  live."  And 
hence  the  Apostle  in  the  second  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, says  that  God  will  reward  every  man  according  to  his  works. 
To  those  who  are  good.  He  will  give  eternal  life ;  to  those  who  are 
evil,  indignation  and  wrath.  This  is  only  saying  that  the  eternal 
principles  of  justice  are  still  in  foi'ce.  If  any  man  can  present  him- 
self before  the  bar  of  God  and  prove  that  he  is  free  from  sin,  either 
imputed  or  personal,  either  original  or  actual,  he  will  not  be  con- 
demned. But  the  fact  is  that  the  whole  world  lies  in  wickedness. 
Man  is  an  apostate  race.  Men  are  all  involved  in  the  penal  and 
natural  consequences  of  Adam's  transgression.  They  stood  their 
probation  in  him,  and  do  not  stand  each  man  for  himself. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  FALL. 

The  Scriptural  Account. 

The  Scriptural  account  of  the  Fall,  as  given  in  the  book  of  Gen- 
esis, is.  That  God  placed  Adam  in  "the  garden  of  Eden  to  dress 
it  and  to  keep  it.  And  the  Lord  God  commanded  the  man,  saying, 
Of  every  tree  of  the  garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat:  but  of  the  tree 
of  the  knowlede[e  of  good  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it :  for  in 

the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die Now 

the  serpent  was  more  subtile  than  any  beast  of  the  field  which  the 
Lord  God  had  made.  And  he  said  unto  the  woman,  Yea,  hath 
God  said.  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  every  tree  of  the  garden  ?  And  the 
woman  said  unto  the  serpent.  We  may  eat  of  the  fruit  of  the  trees  of 
the  garden  :  but  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  which  is  in  tlie  midst  of 
the  garden,  God  hath  said,  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  it,  neither  shall  ye 
touch  it,  lest  ye  die.  And  the  serpent  said  unto  the  woman.  Ye 
shall  not  surely  die.  For  God  doth  know  that  in  the  day  ye  eat 
thereof,  then  your  eyes  shall  be  opened ;  and  ye  shall  be  as  gods 
(as  God),  knowing  good  and  evil.  And  when  the  woman  saw  that 
the  tree  was  good  for  food,  and  tliat  it  was  pleasant  to  the  eyes^ 
and  a  tree  to  be  desired  to  make  wise ;  she  took  of  the  fruit  thereof, 
and  did  eat :  and  gave  also  unto  her  husband  with  her,  and  he  did 
eat." 

The  consequences  of  this  act  of  disobedience  were,  (1.)  An 
immediate  sense  of  guilt  and  shame.  (2.)  The  desire  and  effort 
to  hide  themselves  from  the  face  of  God.  (3.)  The  denunciation 
and  immediate  execution  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God  upon 
the  serpent,  upon  the  man,  and  upon  the  woman.  (4.)  Expulsion 
from  the  garden  of  Eden  and  prohibition  of  access  to  the  Tree  of 
Life. 

Tliat  this  account  of  tlie  probation  and  fall  of  man  is  neither 
an  allegory  nor  a  myth,  but  a  true  history,  is  evident,  (1.)  From 
internal  evidence.  Wlien  contrasted  witii  the  mythological  accounts 
of  the  creation  and  origin  of  man  as  found  in  the  records  of  early 
heathen  nations,  whether  Oriental,  Grecian,  or  Etruscan,  the  differ- 


124  PART  II.     Ch.   VL  — the   fall. 

ence  is  at  once  apparent.  The  latter  are  evidently  the  product  of 
crude  speculation,  the  Scriptural  account  is  simple,  intelligible,  and 
pregnant  with  the  highest  truths.  (2.)  From  the  fact  not  only 
that  it  is  presented  as  a  matter  of  history  in  a  book  which  all 
Christians  recognize  as  of  divine  authority,  but  that  it  also  forms  an 
integral  part  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  which  is  confessedly  historical. 
It  is  the  first  of  the  ten  divisions  into  which  that  book,  in  its  internal 
structure,  is  divided,  and  belongs  essentially  to  its  plan.  (3.)  It  is  not 
only  an  essential  part  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  but  it  is  also  an  essen- 
tial part  of  Scriptural  history  as  a  whole,  which  treats  of  the  origin, 
apostasy,  and  development  of  the  human  race,  as  connected  with 
the  plan  of  redemption.  (4.)  We  accordingly  find  that  both  in 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  the  facts  here  recorded  are  assumed, 
and  referred  to  as  matters  of  history.  (5.)  And  finally,  these  facts 
underlie  the  whole  doctrinal  system  revealed  in  the  Scriptures. 
Our  Lord  and  his  Apostles  refer  to  them  not  only  as  true,  but  as 
furnishing  the  ground  of  all  the  subsequent  revelations  and  dispen- 
sations of  God.  It  was  because  Satan  tempted  man  and  led  him 
into  disobedience  that  he  became  the  head  of  the  kingdom  of 
darkness ;  Avhose  power  Christ  came  to  destroy,  and  from  whose 
dominion  he  redeemed  his  people.  It  was  because  we  died  in 
Adam  that  we  must  be  made  alive  in  Christ.  So  that  the  Church 
universal  has  felt  bound  to  receive  the  record  of  Adam's  temptation 
and  fill  as  a  true  historical  account. 

There  are  many  who,  while  admitting  the  historical  character  of 
this  account,  still  regard  it  as  in  a  great  measure  figurative.  They 
understand  it  as  a  statement  not  so  much  of  external  events  as  of 
an  internal  process  of  thought ;  explaining  how  it  was  that  Eve 
came  to  eat  of  the  forbidden  tree  and  to  induce  Adam  to  join 
in  her  transgression.  They  do  not  admit  that  a  serpent  was  the 
tempter,  or  that  he  spoke  to  Eve,  but  assume  that  she  was  attracted 
by  the  beauty  of  the  forbidden  object,  and  began  to  question  in  her 
own  mind  either  the  fact  or  the  justice  of  the  prohibition.  But 
there  is  not  only  no  valid  reason  for  departing  from  the  literal 
interpretation  of  the  passage,  but  that  interpretation  is  supported 
by  the  authority  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  They 
recognize  the  serpent  as  present,  and  as  the  agent  in  the  temptation 
and  lall  of  our  first  parents. 

TJie  Tree  of  Life. 

According  to  the  sacred  narrative,  there  were  two  trees  standing 
side  by  side  in  the  garden  of  Eden  which  had  a  peculiar  symbolical 


THE   SCRIPTURAL   ACCOUNT.  125 

or  sacramental  character.  The  one  was  called  the  Tree  of  Life, 
the  other  the  Tree  of  Knowledge.  The  former  was  the  symbol  of 
life,  and  its  fruit  was  not  to  be  eaten  except  on  the  condition  of 
man's  retaining  his  integrity.  Whether  the  fruit  of  that  tree 
had  inherent  virtue  to  impart  life,  i.  e.,  to  sustain  the  body  of 
man  in  its  youthful  vigour  and  beauty,  or  gradually  to  refine  it 
until  it  should  become  like  to  what  the  glorified  body  of  Christ 
now  is,  or  whether  the  connection  between  eating  its  fruit  and 
immortality  was  simply  conventional  and  sacramental,  we  cannot 
determine.  It  is  enough  to  know  that  partaking  of  that  tree 
secured  in  some  way  the  enjoyment  of  eternal  life.  That  this  was 
the  fact  is  plain,  not  only  because  man  after  his  transgression  was 
driven  from  paradise  "  lest  he  put  forth  his  hand,  and  take  also  of 
the  tree  of  life,  and  eat,  and  live  forever"  (Gen.  iii.  22);  but  also 
because  Christ  is  called  the  Tree  of  Life.  He  is  so  called  because 
that  tree  was  typical  of  Him,  and  the  analogy  is,  that  as  He  is  the 
source  of  life,  spiritual  and  eternal,  to  his  people,  so  that  tree  was 
appointed  to  be  the  source  of  life  to  the  first  parents  of  our  race 
and  to  all  their  descendants,  had  tliey  not  rebelled  against  God. 
Our  Lord  promises  (Rev.  ii.  7)  to  give  to  them  who  overcome,  to 
eat  of  the  tree  of  life  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  paradise  of  God. 
In  heaven  there  is  said  (Rev.  xxii.  2)  to  be  a  tree  of  life,  whose 
leaves  are  for  the  healing  of  the  nations  ;  and  again  (verse  14), 
"  Blessed  are  they  that  do  his  commandments,  that  they  may  have 
right  to  the  tree  of  life,  and  may  enter  in  through  the  gates  into 
the  city."  The  symbolical  and  typical  import  of  the  tree  of  life  is 
thus  clear.  As  paradise  was  the  type  of  heaven,  so  the  tree  wliich 
would  have  secured  immortal  life  to  obedient  Adam  in  that  teri-es- 
trial  paradise  is  the  type  of  Him  who  is  the  source  of  spiritual  and 
eternal  life  to  his  people  in  the  paradise  above. 

The  Tree  of  Knowledge. 

The  nature  and  significancy  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good 
and  evil  are  not  so  clear.  By  the  tree  of  knowledge,  indeed,  it  is 
altogether  probable,  we  are  to  understand  a  tree  the  fruit  of  which 
would  impart  knowledge.  This  may  be  inferred,  (1.)  Fi'om  analogy. 
As  the  tree  of  life  sustained  or  imparted  life,  so  the  tree  of  knowledge 
was  appointed  to  communicate  knowledge.  (2.)  From  the  sugges- 
tion of  the  tempter,  who  assured  the  woman  that  eating  of  the  fruit 
of  that  tree  would  open  her  eyes.  (3.)  She  so  understood  the 
designation,  for  she  regarded  the  tree  as  desirable  to  render  wise. 
(4.)  The  effect  of  eating  of  the  forbidden  fruit  was  that  the  eyes 


L 


126  PART  II.    Ch.   VII. —  the  fall. 

of  the  transgressors  were  opened.  And  (5.),  in  the  twenty-second 
verse,  we  read  that  God  said  of  fallen  man,  "  Behold,  the  man  is 
become  as  one  of  us,  to  know  good  and  evil."  Unless  this  be 
understood  ironically,  which  in  this  connection  seems  altogether 
unnatural,  it  must  mean  that  Adam  had,  by  eating  the  forbidden 
fruit,  attained  a  knowledge  in  some  respects  analogous  to  tlie 
knowledge  of  God,  however  different  in  its  nature  and  effects. 
This,  therefore,  seems  plain  from  the  whole  narrative,  that  the  tree 
of  knowledge  was  a  tree  the  fruit  of  which  imparted  knowledge. 
Not  indeed  from  any  inherent  virtue,  it  may  be,  in  the  tree  itself, 
but  from  the  appointment  of  God.  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose 
that  the  forbidden  fruit  had  the  power  to  corrupt  either  the  corpo- 
real or  moral  nature  of  man,  and  thus  produce  the  experimental 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  All  that  the  text  requires  is  that 
knowledge  followed  the  eating  of  that  fruit. 

The  words  "  good  and  evil  "  in  this  connection  admit  of  three 
interpretations.  In  the  first  place,  in  Scripture,  the  ignorance  of 
infancy  is  sometimes  expressed  by  saying  that  a  child  cannot  tell 
its  right  hand  from  its  left  ;  sometimes  by  saying,  that  he  cannot 
discern  between  the  evil  and  the  good.  Thus  in  Deut.  i.  39,  it  is 
said,  "  Your  cliildren  ....  had  no  knowledge  between  good  and 
evil,"  and  in  Is.  vii.  16,  "  Before  the  child  shall  know  to  refuse  the 
evil  and  clioose  the  good."  On  the  other  hand  maturity,  whether 
in  intellectual  or  spiritual  knowledge,  is  expressed  by  saying  that  one 
has  power  to  distinguish  between  good  and  evil.  Thus  the  perfect  or 
mature  believer  has  his  "  senses  exercised  to  discern  both  good  and 
evil,"  Heb.  v.  14.  Agreeably  to  the  analogy  of  these  passages,  the 
tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  is  simply  the  tree  of  knowledge. 
The  one  expression  is  fully  equivalent  to  the  other.  This  inter- 
pretation relieves  the  passage  of  many  difficulties.  It  is  sustained 
also  by  the  language  of  Eve,  who  said  it  was  a  tree  desirable  to 
make  wise.  Before  he  sinned,  Adam  had  the  ignorance  of  happi- 
ness and  innocence.  The  happy  do  not  know  what  sorrow  is,  and 
the  innocent  do  not  know  what  sin  is.  When  he  ate  of  the  for- 
bidden tree  he  attained  a  knowledge  he  never  had  before.  But,  in 
the  second  place  the  words,  "  good  and  evil  "  may  be  taken  in  a 
moral  sense.  If  this  is  so,  the  meaning  cannot  be  that  the  fruit 
of  that  tree  was  to  lead  Adam  to  a  knowledge  of  the  distinction  be- 
tween right  and  wrong,  and  thus  awaken  his  dormant  moral  na- 
ture. That  knowledo;e  he  must  have  had  from  the  bejiinning, 
and  was  a  good  not  to  be  proliibited.  Some  suppose  that  by  the 
knowledo;e  of  o-ood  and  evil  is  meant  the  knowledsxe  of  what  thinjis 


THE   SCRIPTURAL  ACCOUNT.  127 

are  good  and  what  are  evil.  This  is  a  point  determined  for  us  by  the 
revealed  will  of  God.  Whatever  He  commands  is  good,  and  what- 
ever He  forbids  is  evil.  The  question  is  determined  by  authority. 
We  cannot  answer  it  from  the  nature  of  things,  nor  by  considera- 
tions of  expediency.  Instead  of  submitting  to  the  authority  or  law 
of  God  as  the  rule  of  duty,  it  is  assumed  that  Adam  aspired  to 
know  for  himself  what  was  good  and  what  evil.  It  was  emancipa- 
tion from  the  trammels  of  authoritv  that  he  sought.  To  this  how- 
ever,  it  may  be  objected  tliat  this  was  not  the  knowledge  which  he 
attained  by  eating  the  forbidden  fruit.  He  was  told  that  his  eyes 
should  be  opened,  that  he  should  know  good  and  evil ;  and  his 
eyes  were  opened  ;  the  promised  knowledge  was  attained.  That 
knowledge,  however,  Avas  not  the  ability  to  determine  for  himself 
between  riglit  and  wrong.  He  had  less  of  that  knowledge  after 
than  before  his  fall.  In  the  third  place,  "  good  and  evil  "  may  be 
taken  in  a  physical  sense,  for  happiness  and  misery.  Eating  of  the 
forbidden  tree  was  to  determine  the  qiiestion  of  Adam's  being 
happy  or  miserable.  It  led  to  an  experimental  knowledge  of  the 
difference.  God  knew  the  nature  and  effects  of  evil  from  his  omnis- 
cience.  Adam  could  know  them  only  from  experience,  and  that 
knowledge  he  gained  when  he  sinned.  Whichever  of  these  partic- 
ular interpretations  be  adopted,  they  all  are  included  in  the  gen- 
eral statement  that  the  tree  of  knowledge  gave  Adam  a  knowledge 
which  he  had  not  before  ;  he  came  to  an  experimental  knowledge 
of  the  difference  between  good  and  evil. 

The  Serpent. 

It  may  be  inferred  from  the  narrative,  that  Adam  was  present 
with  Eve  during  the  temptation.  In  Gen.  iii.  6,  it  is  said  the 
woman  gave  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  to  her  husband  who  was  "  with 
her."  He  was  therefore  a  party  to  the  whole  transaction.  When 
it  is  said  that  a  serpent  addressed  Eve,  we  are  bound  to  take  the 
words  in  their  literal  sense.  The  serpent  is  neither  a  figurative 
designation  of  Satan  ;  nor  did  Satan  assume  the  form  of  a  serpent. 
A  real  serpent  was  the  agent  of  the  temptation,  as  it  is  plain  from 
what  is  said  of  tlie  natural  characteristics  of  the  serpent  in  the  first 
verse  of  the  chapter,  and  from  the  curse  pronounced  upon  the  ani- 
mal itself,  and  the  enmity  wdiich  was  declared  should  subsist  between 
it  and  man  through  all  time.  But  that  Satan  was  the  real  tempter, 
and  that  he  used  tlie  serpent  merely  as  his  organ  or  instrument,  is 
evident,  —  (1.)  From  the  nature  of  the  transaction.  What  is  here 
attributed  to  the  serpf^-nt  fu-  transcends  the  power  of  any  irrational 


128  PART  n.     Ch.   VII.  —  THE  FALL. 

creature.  The  serpent  maybe  the  most  subtile  of  all  the  beasts  of 
the  field,  but  he  has  not  the  high  intellectual  faculties  which  the 
tempter  here  displays.  (2.)  In  the  New  Testament  it  is  both  directly 
asserted,  and  in  various  forms  assumed,  that  Satan  seduced  our  first 
parents  into  sin.  In  Rev.  xii.  9,  it  is  said,  "  The  great  dragon  was 
cast  out,  that  old  serpent,  called  the  Devil,  and  Satan,  which  de- 
ceiveth  the  whole  world."  And  in  xx.  2,  "  He  laid  hold  on  the 
dragon,  that  old  serpent,  which  is  the  Devil,  and  Satan."  In  2 
Cor.  xi.  3,  Paul  says,  "I  fear  lest  ....  as  the  sei*pent 
beguiled  Eve  through  his  subtilty,  so  also  your  minds  should  be 
corrupted  from  the  simplicity  that  is  in  Christ."  But  that  by  the 
serpent  he  understood  Satan,  is  plain  from  v.  14,  where  he  speaks 
of  Satan  as  the  great  deceiver  ;  and  what  is  said  in  Rom.  xvi.  20, 
"  The  God  of  peace  shall  bruise  Satan  under  your  feet,"  is  in  ob- 
vious allusion  to  Gen.  iii.  15.  In  John  viii.  44,  our  Lord  calls  the 
devil  a  murderer  from  the  beginning,  and  the  father  of  lies,  because 
through  him  sin  and  death  were  introduced  into  the  world.  Such 
was  also  the  faith  of  the  Jewish  Chui'ch.  In  the  Book  of  Wisdom 
il.  24,  it  is  said,  that  "  Through  the  envy  of  Satan  came  death 
into  the  world."  In  the  later  Jewish  writings  this  idea  is  often 
presented.^ 

As  to  the  serpent's  speaking  there  is  no  more  difficulty  than  in 
the  utterance  of  articulate  words  from  Sinai,  or  the  sounding  of  a 
voice  from  heaven  at  the  baptism  of  our  Lord,  or  in  the  speaking 
of  Balaam's  ass.  The  words  uttered  were  produced  by  the  power 
of  Satan,  and  of  such  effects  produced  by  angelic  beings  good  and 
evil  there  are  numerous  instances  in  the  Bible. 

The  Nature  of  the  Temptation. 

The  first  address  of  the  tempter  to  Eve  was  designed  to 
awaken  distrust  in  the  goodness  of  God,  and  doubt  as  to  the  truth 
of  the  prohibition.  "  Hath  God  indeed  said,  ye  shall  not  eat  of 
every  tree  of  the  garden  ?  "  or,  rather,  as  the  words  probably 
mean,  "  Has  God  said,  ye  shall  not  eat  of  any  tree  of  the  garden  ?  " 
The  next  address  was  a  direct  assault  upon  her  faith.  "  Ye 
shall  not  surely  die ;  "  but  on  the  contrary,  become  as  God  himself 
in  knowledge.  To  this  temptation  she  yielded,  and  Adam  joined 
in  the  transgi-ession.  From  this  account  it  appears  that  doubt,  un- 
belief, and  pride  were  the  principles  which  led  to  this  fatal  act  of 
disobedience.  Eve  doubted  God's  goodness  ;  she  disbelieved  his 
threatening ;  she  aspired  after  forbidden  knowledge. 

1  See  Eisenmenger,  Endecktes  Judenthum,  edit.  Konigsberg,  1711 ;  i.  p.  822. 


THE   SCRIPTURAL  ACCOUNT.  129 

The  Effects  of  the  First  Sin. 
The  effects  of  sin  upon  our  first  parents  themselves,  were,  (1.) 
Shame,  a  sense  of  degradation  and  pollution.  (2.)  Dread  of  the 
displeasure  of  God ;  or,  a  sense  of  guilt,  and  the  consequent  desire 
to  hide  from  his  presence.  These  effects  were  unavoidable.  They 
prove  the  loss  not  only  of  innocence  but  of  original  righteousness, 
and  with  it  of  the  favour  and  fellowship  of  God.  The  state  there- 
fore to  which  Adam  was  reduced  by  his  disobedience,  so  far  as  his 
subjective  condition  is  concerned,  was  analogous  to  that  of  the 
fallen  angels.  He  was  entirely  and  absolutely  ruined.  It  is  said  that 
no  man  becomes  thoroughly  depraved  by  one  transgression.  In 
one  sense  this  is  true.  But  one  transgression  by  incurring  the 
wrath  and  curse  of  God  and  the  loss  of  fellowship  with  Him,  as  ef- 
fectually involves  spiritual  death,  as  one  perforation  of  the  heart 
causes  the  death  of  the  body  ;  or  one  puncture  of  the  eyes  involves 
us  in  perpetual  darkness.  The  other  forms  of  evil  consequent  on 
Adam's  disobedience  were  merely  subordinate.  They  were  but 
the  expressions  of  the  divine  displeasure  and  the  consequences  of 
that  spiritual  death  in  which  the  threatened  penalty  essentially 
consisted. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

SIN. 

§  1.     The  Nature  of  the   Question  to  he   Considered. 

Our  first  parents,  we  are  told,  fell  from  the  estate  wlierein  they 
were  created  by  sinning  against  God.  This  presents  the  question, 
whicii  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  and  comprehensive  whether  in 
morals  or  in  theology.  What  is  sin  ?  The  existence  of  sin  is  an 
undeniable  fact.  No  man  can  examine  his  own  nature,  or  observe 
the  conduct  of  his  fellow  men,  without  having  the  conviction  forced 
upon  him  that  there  is  such  an  evil  as  sin.  This  is  not  a  purely 
moral  or  theological  question.  It  falls  also  within  the  province  of 
philosophy,  which  assumes  to  explain  all  the  phenoniena  of  human 
nature  as  well  as  of  the  external  world.  Philosophers,  therefore, 
of  every  age  and  of  every  school,  have  been  compelled  to  discuss  this 
subject.  The  philosophical  theories,  as  to  the  nature  of  sin,  are  as 
numerous  as  the  different  schools  of  philosophy.  This  great  ques- 
tion comes  under  the  consideration  of  the  Christian  theologian  with 
certain  limitations.  He  assumes  the  existence  of  a  personal  God 
of  infinite  perfection,  and  he  assumes  the  responsibility  of  man. 
No  theory  of  the  nature  or  origin  of  sin  which  conflicts  with  either 
of  these  fundamental  principles,  can  for  him  be  true.  Before 
entering  upon  the  statement  of  any  of  the  theories  which  have 
been  more  or  less  extensively  adopted,  it  is  important  to  ascertain 
the  data  on  which  the  answer  to  the  question.  What  is  sin  ?  is  to 
be  determined ;  or  the  premises  from  which  that  answer  is  to  be 
deduced.  These  are  simply  the  declarations  of  the  word  of  God 
and  the  facts  of  our  own  moral  nature.  Ignoring  either  wholly  or 
in  part  these  two  sources  of  knowledge,  many  philosophers  and 
even  theologians,  have  recourse  to  the  reason,  or  rather  to  the 
speculative  understanding,  for  the  decision  of  the  question.  This 
method,  however,  is  unreasonable,  and  is  sure  to  lead  to  false  con- 
clusions, lu  determining  the  nature  of  sensation  we  cannot  adopt 
the  a  jyriori  method,  and  argue  from  the  nature  of  a  thing  how  it 
ought  to  affect  our  organs  of  sense.  We  must  assume  the  facts  of 
sense  consciousness  as  the  phenomena  to  be  explained.     We  can- 


§  1.]  THE   NATURE   OF   SIN.  131 

not  say  that  such  is  the  nature  of  h'ght  that  it  cannot  cause  the 
phenomena  of  vision  ;  or  of  acids  that  they  cannot  affect  the 
organs  of  taste ;  or  that  our  sensations  are  deceptive  which  lead  us 
to  refer  them  to  such  causes.  Nor  can  we  determine  philosophi- 
cally the  principles  of  beauty,  and  decide  what  men  must  admire 
and  what  they  must  dislike.  All  that  philosophy  can  do  is  take 
the  facts  of  our  aesthetic  nature  and  from  them  deduce  the  laws  or 
principles  of  beauty.  In  like  manner  the  facts  of  our  moral  con- 
sciousness must  be  assumed  as  true  and  trustworthy.  We  cannot 
argue  that  such  is  the  constitution  of  the  universe,  such  the 
relation  of  the  individual  to  the  whole,  that  there  can  be  no  such 
thino;  as  sin,  nothincr  for  which  we  should  feel  remorse  or  on  the 
ground  of  which  we  should  apprehend  punishment.  Nor  can  we 
adopt  such  a  theory  of  moral  obligation  as  forbids  our  recognizing 
as  sin  what  the  conscience  forces  us  to  condemn.  Any  man 
who  should  adopt  such  a  theory  of  the  sublime  and  beautiful,  as 
would  demonstrate  that  Niagara  and  the  Alps  were  not  sublime 
objects  in  nature  ;  or  that  the  Madonna  del  Sisti  or  the  Transfigu- 
ration by  Raphael  are  not  beautiful  productions  of  art  ;  or  that 
the  "  Iliad  "  and  "  Paradise  Lost  "  are  not  worthy  of  the  admira- 
tion of  ages,  would  lose  his  labour.  And  thus  the  man  who 
ignores  the  facfs  of  our  moral  nature  in  his  theories  of  the  origin 
and  nature  of  sin,  must  labour  in  vain.  This,  however,  is  con- 
stantly done.  It  will  be  found  that  all  the  anti-theistic  and  anti- 
chrlstian  views  of  this  subject  are  purely  arbitrary  speculations, 
at  war  with  the  simplest  and  most  undeniable  facts  of  conscious- 
ness. 

With  regard  to  the  nature  of  sin,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  there 
are  two  aspects  in  which  the  subject  may  be  viewed.  The  first 
concerns  its  metaphysical,  and  the  second,  its  moral  nature.  What 
is  that  which  we  call  sin  ?  Is  it  a  substance,  a  principle,  or  an 
act  ?  Is  it  privation,  negation,  or  defect  ?  Is  it  antagonism  be- 
tween mind  and  matter,  between  soul  and  body?  Is  it  selfish- 
ness as  a  feeling,  or  as  a  purpose  ?  All  these  are  questions  which 
concern  the  metaphysical  nature  of  sin,  what  it  is  as  a  res  in 
natura.  Whereas  such  questions  as  the  following  concern  rather 
its  moral  nature,  namely.  What  gives  sin  its  character  as  moral 
evil  ?  How  does  it  stand  related  to  law  ?  What  law  is  it  to 
•wiiich  sin  is  related  ?  What  is  its  relation  to  the  justice  of  God  ? 
What  is  its  relation  to  his  holiness?  What  has,  or  can  have  the 
relation  of  sin  to  law  ;  is  it  acts  of  deliberation  only,  or  also  im- 
pulsive acts  and  affections,  emotions  and  principles,  or  dispositions'' 


132  PART  n.     Cii.   VIIL  — SIN. 

It  is  obvious  that  these  are  moral,  rather  than  metaphysical  ques- 
tions. In  some  of  the  theories  on  the  nature  of  sin  it  is  viewed 
exclusively  in  one  of  these  aspects  ;  and  in  some,  exclusively  in 
the  other ;  and  in  some  both  views  are  combined.  It  is  not  pro- 
posed to  attempt  to  keep  these  views  distinct  as  both  are  of  neces- 
sity involved  in  the  theological  discussion  of  the  subject. 

§  2.     Philosophical  Theories  of  the  Nature  of  Sin. 

The  first  theory  in  the  order  of  time,  apart  from  the  primitive 
doctrine  of  tlie  Bible,  as  to  the  origin  and  nature  of  sin,  is  the 
dualistic,  or  that  which  assumes  the  existence  of  an  eternal  prin- 
ciple of  evil.  This  doctrine  was  widely  disseminated  througliout 
the  East,  and  in  different  forms  was  partially  introduced  into  the 
Christian  church.  According  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Parsis  this 
original  principle  was  a  personal  being ;  according  to  the  Gnos- 
tics, Marcionites,  and  Manicheans,  it  was  a  substance,  an  eternal 
v\rq  or  matter.  Augustine  says,  "  Iste  [Manes]  duo  principia  inter 
se  diversa  atque  adversa,  eademque  seterna  et  coseterna,  hoc  est 
semper  fuisse,  composuit :  duasque  naturas  atque  substantias,  boni 
scilicet  et  mail,  sequens  alios  antiques  haereticos,  opinatus  est."  ^ 
These  two  principles  are  in  perpetual  conflict.  In  the  actual  world 
they  are  intermingled.  Both  enter  into  the  constitution  of  man. 
He  has  a  spirit  (Trvev/xa)  derived  from  the  kingdom  of  light ;  and 
a  body  with  its  animal  life  (o-w/^a  and  ^^xn)  derived  from  the 
kingdom  of  darkness.  Sin  is  thus  a  physical  evil  ;  the  defilement 
of  the  spirit  by  its  union  with  a  material  body  ;  and  is  to  be  over- 
come by  physical  means,  i.  e.,  by  means  adapted  to  destroy  the 
influence  of  the  body  on  the  soul.  Hence  the  efficacy  of  absti- 
nence and  austerities.^ 

This  theory  obviously  is  :  (1.)  Inconsistent  with  Theism,  in 
making  something  out  of  God  eternal  and  independent  of  his  will. 
He  ceases  to  be  an  infinite  Being  and  an  absolute  sovereign.  He 
is  everywhere  limited  by  a  coeternal  power  which  He  cannot  con- 
trol. (2.)  It  destroys  the  nature  of  sin  as  a  moral  evil,  in  making 
it  a  substance,  and  in  representing  it  as  inseparable  from  the  nature 
of  man  as  a  creature  composed  of  matter  and  spirit.  (3.)  It  de- 
stroys, of  course,  human  responsibility,  not  only  by  making  moral 
evil  necessary  from  the  very  constitution  of  man,  and  by  referring 
its  origin  to  a  source,  eternal  and  necessarily  operative  ;   but  by 

1  Liber  de  Haresibus,  XLVi. ;    Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  vol.  viii.  p.  48,  d. 

2  Baur's  Manichean  System.     Neander's   Church  History,  edit.  Boston,  1849,  vol.  i.  pp. 
478-506.    Miiller's  Lehre  von  der  Siinde,  vol.  i.  pp.  504-518. 


§2.]  PHILOSOPHICAL   THEORIES.  133 

making  it  a  substance,  which  destroys  its  nature  as  sin.  This 
theory  is  so  thoroughly  anti-theistic  and  anti-Christian,  that 
although  long  prevailing  as  a  heresy  in  the  Church,  it  never 
entered  into  any  living  connection  with  Christian  doctrine. 

Sin  regarded  as  a  mere  Limitation  of  Being. 

The  second  anti-Christian  theory  of  the  nature  of  sin  is  that 
which  makes  it  a  mere  negation,  or  limitation  of  beino-.  Beino-, 
substaiice,  is  good.  "  Omne  quod  est,  in  quantum  aliqua  sub- 
stantia est,  et  bonum  [est],"^  says  Augustine.  God  as  the  abso- 
lute substance  is  the  supreme  good.  The  absolute  evil  would  be 
nothing.  Therefore  the  less  of  being,  the  less  of  good  ;  and  all 
negation,  or  limitation  of  being  is  evil,  or  sin.  Spinoza  ^  says, 
"  Quo  magis  unusquisque,  suum  utile  qugerere,  hoc  est  suum  esse 
conservare  conatur  et  potest,  eo  magis  virtute  prseditus  est; 
contra  quatenus  unusquisque  suum  utile,  hoc  est  suum  esse  conser- 
vare negligit,  eatenus  est  impotens."  In  his  demonstration  of  that 
proposition  he  makes  power  and  goodness  identical,  potentia 
and  virtus  are  the  same.  Hence  the  want  of  virtue,  or  evil,  is 
weakness,  or  limitation  of  being.  Still  more  distinctly,  does  Pro- 
fessor Baur  of  Tiibingen,  present  this  view  of  the  nature  of  sin.^ 
He  says,  "  Evil  is  what  is  finite  ;  for  the  finite  is  negative  ;  the 
negation  of  the  infinite.  Everything  finite  is  relatively  nothing ; 
a  negativity  which,  in  the  constant  distinction  of  plus  and  miiius 
of  reality,  appears  in  different  forms."  Again,  "  If  freedom  from 
sin  is  the  removal  of  all  limitation,  so  is  it  clear,  that  only  an  end- 
less series  of  gradations  can  bring  us  to  the  point  where  sin  is 
reduced  to  a  vanishing  minimum.  If  this  minimum  should  entirely 
disappear,  then  the  being,  thus  entirely  free  from  sin,  becomes  one 
with  God,  for  God  only  is  absolutely  sinless.  But  if  other  beings 
than  God  are  to  exist,  there  must  be  in  them,  so  far  as  they  are 
not  infinite  as  God  is,  for  that  very  reason,  a  minimum  of  evil." 
The  distinction  between  good  and  evil,  is,  therefore,  merely  quan- 
titative, a  distinction  between  more  or  less.  Being  is  good,  the  limi- 
tation of  being  is  evil.  This  idea  of  sin  lies  in  the  nature  of  the 
Pantheistic  system.  If  God  be  the  only  substance,  the  only  life, 
the  only  agent,  then  He  is  the  sum  of  all  that  is,  or,  rather  all  that 
is,  is  the  manifestation  of  God  ;  the  form  of  his  existence.  Con- 
sequently, if  evil  exists   it   is  as  much  a  form  of  the  existence  of 


L 


1  De  Genesi  ad  Lileram,  xi.  xiii.  17 ;    Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  vol.  iii.  p.  450,  d. 

2  Etkicis,  Par.  iv.  propos.  xx. ;  Works,  edit.  Jena,  1803,  vol.  ii.  p.  217. 

3  In  the  Tubingen  Zdtschrift,  1834,  Drittes  Heft. 


134  PART  n.     Cu.  AaiL  — SIN. 

God  as  good  ;  and  can  be  nothing  but  imperfect  development,  or 
mere  limitation  of  being. 

Tliis  theory,  it  is  clear,  (1.)  ignores  the  difference  between  the 
malum  metaphysicum  and  the  malum  morale,  between  the  phys- 
ical and  the  moral  ;  between  a  stunted  tree  and  a  wicked  man. 
Instead  of  explaining  sin,  it  denies  its  existence.  It  is  therefore  in 
conflict  with  the  clearest  of  intuitive  truths  and  the  strongest  of 
our  instinctive  convictions.  There  is  nothing  of  which  we  are  more 
sure,  not  even  our  own  existence,  than  we  are  of  the  difference 
between  sin  and  limitation  of  being,  between  what  is  morally 
wrong  and  what  is  a  mere  negation  of  power,  (2.)  This  theory 
assumes  the  truth  of  the  pantheistic  system  of  the  universe,  and 
therefore  is  at  variance  with  our  religious  nature,  which  demands 
and  assumes  the  existence  of  a  personal  God.  (3.)  In  destroying 
the  idea  of  sin,  it  destroys  all  sense  of  moral  obligation,  and  gives 
unrestrained  liberty  to  all  evil  passions.  It  not  only  teaches  that 
all  that  is,  is  right ;  that  everything  that  exists  or  happens  has  a 
right  to  be,  but  that  the  only  standard  of  virtue  is  power.  The 
strongest  is  the  best.  As  Cousin  says,  the  victor  is  always  right  ; 
the  victim  is  always  wrong.  The  conqueror  is  always  more  moral 
than  the  vanquished.  Virtue  and  prosperity,  misfortune  and  vice, 
he  says,  are  in  necessary  harmony.  Feebleness  is  a  vice  (i.  e.,  sin), 
and  therefore  is  always  punished  and  beaten.^  This  ])rinciple  is 
adopted  by  all  such  writers  as  Carlyle,  who  in  their  hero  worship, 
make  the  strong  always  the  good  ;  and  represent  the  murderer, 
the  pirate,  and  the  persecutor,  as  always  more  moral  and  more 
worthy  of  admiration  than  their  victims.  Satan  is  far  more  worthy 
of  homage  than  the  best  of  men,  as  in  him  there  is  more  of  being 
and  power,  and  he  is  the  seducer  of  angels  and  the  destroyer  of 
men.  A  more  thoroughly  demoniacal  system  than  this,  the  mind 
of  man  has  never  conceived.  Yet  this  system  has  not  only  its 
philosophical  advocates,  and  its  practical  disciples,  but  it  percolates 
through  much  of  the  popular  literature  both  of  Europe  and 
America. 

Leibnitz's  Theory  of  Privation. 

Nearly  allied  in  terms,  but  very  diflferent  in  spirit  and  purpose 
from  this  doctrine  of  Spinoza  and  his  successors,  is  the  theory  of 
Leibnitz,  who  also  resolves  sin  into  privation,  and  refers  it  to  the 
necessary  limitation  of  being.  Leibnitz,  however,  was  a  theist,  and 
his  object  in  his  "Thdodicde"  was  to  vindicate  God  by  proving  that 

1  History    of  Modern  Philosophy,    translation  by  Wight,  New    York,  1852,  vol.  i.  pp. 
182-187. 


§2.]  PHILOSOPHICAL   THEORIES.  135 

the  existence  of  sin  is  consistent  with  his  divine  perfections.  His 
work  is  religious  in  its  spirit  and  object,  however  erroneous  and 
dangerous  in  some  of  its  principles.  He  assumed  that  this  is  the 
best  possible  world.  As  sin  exists  in  the  world,  it  must  be  neces- 
sary or  unavoidable.  It  is  not  to  be  referred  to  the  agency  of  God. 
But  as  God  is  the  universal  agent  according  to  Leibnitz's  philoso- 
phy, sin  must  be  a  simple  negation  or  privation  for  which  no  effi- 
cient cause  is  needed.  These  are  the  two  points  to  be  established. 
First,  that  sin  is  unavoidable ;  and  secondly,  that  it  is  not  due  to 
the  agency  of  God.  It  is  unavoidable,  because  it  ai'ises  out  of 
the  necessary  limitation  of  the  creature.  The  creature  cannot  be 
absolutely  perfect.  His  knowledge  and  power  must  be  limited. 
But  if  limited,  they  must  not  only  be  liable  to  error,  but  error  or 
wrong  action  is  unavoidable,  or  you  would  have  absolutely  perfect 
action  from  a  less  than  absolutely  perfect  agent ;  the  effect  would 
transcend  the  power  of  the  cause.  Evil,  therefore,  according  to 
Leibnitz,  arises  "  par  la  supreme  necessity  des  v^rites  eternelles."  ^ 
"  Le  franc-arbitre  va  au  bien,  et  s'il  rencontre  le  mal,  c'est  par 
accident,  c'est  que  le  mal  est  cache  sous  le  bien  et  comme  masque." 
The  origin  of  evil  is  thus  indeed  referred  to  the  will,  but  the  will 
is  unavoidably,  or  of  necessity  led  into  error,  by  the  limitations 
inseparable  from  the  nature  of  a  creature.  If,  therefore,  God  cre- 
ated a  world  at  all,  He  must  create  one  from  which  sin  could  not  be 
excluded.  Such  being  the  origin  and  nature  of  sin,  it  follows  that 
God  is  not  its  author.  Providence,  according  to  Leibnitz,  is  a  con- 
tinued creation  (at  least  this  is  the  view  presented  in  some  parts  of 
his  "  Thdodicde  "2),  therefore  all  that  is  positive  and  real  must  be 
due  to  his  agency.  But  sin  being  merely  negation,  or  privation,  is 
nothing  positive,  and  therefore  does  not  need  an  efficient,  but  simply 
a  deficient  cause  to  account  for  its  existence.  The  similarity  in  mode 
of  statement  between  this  doctrine  and  the  Augustinian  doctrine 
which  makes  all  sin  defect,  and  which  reconciles  its  existence  with 
the  holiness  of  God  on  the  same  principle  as  that  adopted  by  Leib- 
nitz, is  obvious  to  all.  It  is  however  merely  a  similarity  in  the 
mode  of  expression.  The  two  doctrines  are  essentially  different,  as 
we  shall  see  when  the  Augustinian  theory  comes  to  be  considered. 
With  Augustine,  defect  is  the  absence  of  a  moral  good  which  the 
creature  should  possess ;  with  Leibnitz,  negation  is  the  necessary 
limitation  of  the  powers  of  the  creature. 

The  objections  to  this  theory  which  makes  sin  mere  privation, 

1  Theodicee,  i.  25,  Works,  edit.  Berlin,  1840,  p.  511. 

2  Theodicee,  i.  27,  and  iii.  381. 


136  PART  n.   ch.  vni.— sin. 

and  refers  it  to  the  nature  of  creatures  as  finite  beings,  are  substan- 
tially the  same  as  those  already  presented  as  bearing  against  tiie 
other  theories  before  mentioned.  (1.)  In  the  first  place,  it  makes 
sin  a  necessary  evil.  Creatures  ai^  of  necessity  imperfect  or  finite; 
and  if  sin  be  the  unavoidable  consequence  of  such  imperfection,  or 
limitation  of  being,  sin  also  becomes  a  necessary  evil.  (2.)  It  makes 
God  after  all  the  author  of  sin  in  so  far  as  it  throws  upon  Him  the 
responsibility  for  its  existence.  For  even  admitting  that  it  is  a 
mere  negation,  requiring  no  efficient  cause,  nevertheless  God  is  the 
author  of  the  limitation  in  the  creature  whence  sin  of  necessity 
flows.  He  has  so  constituted  the  works  of  his  hand,  that  they 
cannot  but  sin,  just  as  the  child  cannot  but  err  in  its  judgments. 
Reason  is  so  feeble  even  in  the  adult  man  that  mistakes  as  to  the 
nature  and  causes  of  things  are  absolutely  unavoidable.  And  if 
sin  be  equally  unavoidable  from  the  very  constitution  of  the  crea- 
ture, God,  who  is  the  author  of  that  constitution,  becomes  responsi- 
ble for  its  existence.  This  is  not  only  derogatory  to  the  character 
of  God,  but  directly  opposed  to  the  teachings  of  his  Word.  The 
Bible  never  refers  the  origin  of  sin,  whether  in  angels  or  in  men, 
to  the  necessary  limitations  of  their  being  as  creatures,  but  to  the 
perverted  and  inexcusable  use  of  their  own  free  agency.  The 
fallen  angels  kept  not  their  first  estate ;  and  man,  being  left  to  the 
freedom  of  his  own  will,  fell  from  the  estate  in  which  he  was  cre- 
ated. (3.)  This  theory  tends  to  obliterate  the  distinction  between 
moral  and  physical  evil.  If  sin  be  mere  privation,  or  if  it  be  the 
necessary  consequence  of  the  feebleness  of  the  creature,  it  is  the 
object  of  pity  rather  than  of  abhorrence.  In  the  writings  of  the 
advocates  of  this  theory  the  two  senses  of  the  words  good  and  evil, 
the  moral  and  the  physical,  are  constantly  interchanged  and  con- 
founded ;  because  evil  according  to  their  views  is  really  little  more 
than  a  misfortune,  an  unavoidable  mistake  as  to  what  is  really  good. 
The  distinction,  however,  between  virtue  and  vice,  holiness  and 
sin,  as  revealed  in  our  consciousness  and  in  the  word  of  God,  is 
absolute  and  entire.  Both  are  simple  ideas.  We  know  what 
pain  is  from  experience ;  we  know  what  sin  is  from  the  same 
source.  We  know  that  the  two  are  as  different  as  day  and  night, 
as  light  and  sound.  Any  theory,  therefore,  which  tends  to  con- 
found them,  must  be  false.  Accordingly,  in  the  Scriptures  while 
mere  suffering  is  always  presented  as  an  object  of  commiseration, 
sin  is  presented  as  an  object  of  abhorrence  and  condemnation. 
The  wrath  and  curse  of  God  are  denounced  against  all  sin  as  its 
just  desert.     (4.)  This  doctrine,  therefore,  necessarily  tends  not  only 


§2.]  PHILOSOPHICAL  THEORIES.  137 

to  lessen  our  sense  of  the  evil  or  pollution  of  sin,  but  also  to 
destroy  the  sense  of  guilt.  Our  sins  are  our  misfortunes,  our  in- 
firmities. They  are  not  what  conscience  pronounces  them  to  be, 
crimes  calling  for  condign  punishment.  Sin,  however,  reveals 
itself  in  our  consciousness  not  as  a  weakness,  but  as  a  power.  It 
is  o;i'eatest  in  the  strongest.  It  is  not  the  feeble-minded  who  are 
the  worst  of  men  ;  but  those  great  in  intellect  have  been,  in  many 
cases,  the  greatest  in  iniquity.  Satan,  the  worst  of  created  beings, 
is  the  most  powerful  of  creatures.  (5.)  If  this  theory  be  correct,  sin 
must  be  everlasting.  As  we  can  never  be  free  from  the  limitations 
of  our  being,  we  can  never  be  free  from  sin  to  which  those  limita- 
tions unavoidably  give  rise.  The  soul,  therefore,  as  has  been  said, 
is  the  asymptote  of  God,  forever  approaching  but  never  reaching 
the  state  of  absolute  sinlessness. 

Sin  necessary  Antagonism. 

Still  another  theory  obviously  inconsistent  with  the  facts  of  con- 
sciousness and  the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  is  that  which  accounts 
for  sin  on  the  law  of  necessary  opposition,  or  antagonism.  All  life, 
it  is  said,  implies  action  and  reaction.  Even  in  the  material  uni- 
verse the  same  law  prevails.  The  heavenly  bodies  are  kept  in 
their  orbits  by  the  balance  of  centrifugal  and  centripetal  forces. 
There  is  polarity  in  light,  and  in  magnetism  and  electricity.  All 
chemical  changes  are  produced  by  attraction  and  repulsion.  Thus 
in  the  animal  world  there  is  no  strength  without  obstacles  to  be 
overcome ;  no  rest  witliout  fatigue  ;  no  life  without  death.  So  also 
the  mind  is  developed  by  continual  struggles,  by  constant  conflict 
with  what  is  within  and  without.  The  same  law,  it  is  urged,  must 
prevail  in  the  moral  world.  There  can  be  no  good  without  evil. 
Good  is  the  resistance  or  the  overcoming  of  evil.  What  the  ma- 
terial universe  would  be,  had  matter  but  one  property  ;  if  every- 
thing were  oxygen  or  everything  carbon  ;  what  life  would  be  with- 
out action  and  reaction  ;  what  the  mind  would  be  without  the 
struggle  with  error  and  search  after  truth  ;  such,  it  is  said,  the 
moral  world  would  be  without  sin  ;  a  stagnant,  lifeless  pool.  So 
far  as  creatures  are  concerned,  it  is  maintained,  that  it  is  a  law  of 
their  constitution,  that  they  should  be  developed  by  antagonism,  by 
the  action  of  contrary  forces,  or  opposing  principles  ;  so  that  a 
moral  world  without  sin  is  an  impossibility.  Sin  is  the  necessary 
condition  of  the  existence  of  virtue. 

This  general  theory  is  of  early  origin  and  wide  dissemination. 
In  its  latest  form,  as  presented  by  Blasche  and  Rosenkranz,  the  uni- 


138  PART  n.   Ch.  vul  — sin. 

verse  itself,  as  a  product  of  the  self-development  of  the  infinite  and 
absolute  Being,  involving  a  separation  or  difference  from  the  pure 
and  simple  one  in  which  was  no  distinction,  is  evil.  It  comes  into 
existence  bv  a  fall  or  apostasy.  Thus,  as  Professor  Miiller  in  his 
work  on  "  Sin,"  says,  Instead  of  Pantiieism  we  have  a  system 
which  nearly  approaches  Pansatanism.  Apart  however  from  this 
dreadful  extreme  of  the  doctrine,  in  any  form  it  destroys  the  very 
nature  of  sin.  What  is  so  called  is  the  universal  law  of  all  finite 
existence.  There  cannot  be  action  without  reaction.  There  can- 
not be  life  without  diversity  and  antagonism  of  operations.  And 
if  good  cannot  exist  without  eA'il,  evil  ceases  to  be  something  to  be 
abhorred  and  condemned.  Men  cease  to  be  responsible  for  what 
is  inseparable  from  their  very  nature  as  creatures,  and  therefore 
there  is  nothing  which  the  conscience  can  condemn  or  which  God 
can  punish.  Our  whole  moral  nature,  on  this  theory,  is  a  delu- 
sion, and  all  the  denunciations  of  Scripture  against  sin  are  the  rav- 
ines of  fanaticism. 

tSchleiermacher  s  Theory  of  Sin. 

Schleiermacher's  doctrine  of  sin  is  so  related  to  his  whole  philo- 
sophical and  theological  system  that  one  cannot  be  understood 
without  some  knowledge  of  the  other.  His  philosophy  is  pantheistic. 
His  theology  is  simply  the  interpretation  of  human  consciousness  in 
accordance  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  his  philosophy.  It 
is  called  Christian  theology  because  it  is  the  interpretation  of  the 
religious  consciousness  of  Christians  ;  i.  e.,  of  those  who  know  and 
believe  the  facts  recorded  concerning  Christ.  The  leading  princi- 
ples of  his  system  are  the  following  :  — 

1.  God  is  the  absolute  Infinity  (die  einfache  und  absolute 
Unendlichkeit),  not  a  person,  but  simple  being  with  the  single 
attribute  of  omnipotence.  Other  attributes  which  we  ascribe  to 
the  Infinite  Being  express  not  what  is  in  Him  (or  rather  in  It), 
but  the  effects  produced  in  us.  Wisdom,  goodness,  holiness  in  God, 
mean  simply  the  causality  in  Him  which  produces  those  attributes 
in  us. 

2.  Absolute  power  means  all  power.  God,  or  the  absolutely 
powerful  being,  is  the  only  cause.  Everything  that  is  and  every- 
thing that  occurs  are  due  to  his  efficiency. 

3.  This  infinite  power  produces  the  world.  Whatever  the 
relation  between  the  two,  whether  it  is  the  substance  of  which  the 
world  is  the  phenomenon,  or  Avhether  the  world  is  the  substance  of 
which  God  is  the  life,  the  world  in  some  sense  is.  There  is  a  finite 
as  well  as  an  infinite. 


§  2.]  .  PHILOSOPHICAL   THEORIES.  139 

4.  Man,  as  an  integral  part  of  the  world,  consists  of  two  ele- 
ments, or  stands  related  both  to  the  finite  and  infinite,  God  and 
nature.  There  is  in  man  self-consciousness,  or  a  consciousness 
which  is  affected  by  the  world.  He  is  in  the  world  and  of  the 
world,  and  is  acted  upon  by  the  world.  On  the  other  hand,  he  has 
wh:it  Schleiermacher  calls  Gottesbewusstseyn,  or  God-consciousness. 
Tliis  is  not  merely  a  consciousness  of  God,  but  is  God  in  us  in  the 
form  of  consciousness. 

5.  The  normal,  or  ideal,  state  of  man  consists  in  the  absolute 
and  uninterrupted  control  of  the  God-consciousness,  or  of  God  in 
us.  These  two  principles  he  sometimes  distinguishes  as  flesh  and 
spirit.  But  by  flesh  he  does  not  mean  the  body ;  nor  what  St. 
Paul  commonly  means  by  it,  our  corrupt  fallen  nature  ;  but  our 
whole  nature  so  far  as  it  stands  related  to  the  world.  It  is  tanta- 
mount, in  the  terminology  of  Schleiermachei',  to  self-conscious- 
ness. And  by  spirit  he  does  not  mean  the  reason,  nor  what  the 
Bible  means  by  the  spirit  in  man,  {.  e.,  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  the 
(Gottesbewusstseyn)  God-consciousness,  or  God  in  us. 

6.  Religion  consists  in  the  feeling  of  absolute  dependence.  That 
is,  in  the  recognition  of  the  fact  that  God,  or  the  absolute  Being, 
is  the  only  cause,  and  that  we  are  merely  the  form  in  which  his 
causality  is  revealed  or  exercised. 

7.  The  original  state  of  man  was  not  a  normal  or  ideal  state. 
That  is,  the  God-consciousness  or  divine  principle  was  not  strong 
enough  absolutely  to  control  the  self-consciousness.  That  was  a 
state  to  be  reached  by  progress  or  development. 

8.  The  feeling  which  arises  from  the  want  of  this  absolute  control 
of  the  higher  principle  is  the  sense  of  sin  ;  and  the  conviction  that 
the  higher  principle  ought  to  rule  is  the  sense  of  guilt.  With  this 
feeling  of  sin  and  guilt  arises  the  sense  of  the  need  of  redemption. 

9.  This  redemption  consists  in  giving  to  the  God-consciousness 
complete  control ;  and  is  effected  through  Christ,  who  is  the  normal 
or  ideal  man.  That  is.  He  is  the  man  in  whom  the  God-conscious- 
ness, the  divine  nature,  God  (these,  in  this  system,  are  interchange- 
able terms),  was  from  the  beginning  completely  dominant.  We 
become  like  Him,  {.  e.,  are  redeemed,  partly  by  the  recognition  of 
his  true  character  as  sinless,  and  partly  by  communion  with  Him 
through  his  Church. 

It  is  plain  that  this  system  precludes  the  possibility  of  sin  in  the 
true  Scriptural  sense  of  the  term,  — 

1.  Because  it  precludes  the  idea  of  a  personal  God.  If  sin  be 
want  of  conformity  to   law,  there  must  be  a  lawgiver,  one  who 


140  PART  n.   Ch.  vin.  — sm. 

prescribes  the  rule  of  duty  to  his  creatures.  But  in  this  system 
there  is  no  self-conscious,  personal  ruler  who  is  the  moral  governor 
of  men. 

2.  Because  the  system  denies  all  efficiency,  and  of  course  all 
liberty  to  the  creature.  If  the  Infinite  Being  is  the  only  agent, 
then  all  that  is,  is  due  to  his  direct  efficiency ;  and  sin,  tiierefore, 
is  either  his  work  or  it  is  a  mere  negation. 

3.  Because  what,  according  to  this  theory,  is  called  sin  is  abso- 
lutely universal  and  absolutely  necessary.  It  is  the  unavoidable 
consequence  or  condition  of  the  existence  of  such  a  being  as  man. 
That  is,  of  a  being  with  a  self-consciousness  and  a  God-conscious- 
ness, in  such  proportions  and  relation  that  the  dominance  of  the 
latter  can  be  attained  only  gradually. 

4.  Because  what  are  called  sin  and  guilt  are  only  such  in  our 
consciousness,  or  in  our  subjective  apprehension  of  them.  Certain 
things  produce  in  us  the  sense  of  pain,  others  the  feeling  of  pleas- 
ure ;  some  the  feeling  of  approbation,  others  of  disapprobation  ; 
and  that  by  the  ordinance,  so  to  speak,  of  God.  But  pain  and 
pleasure,  right  and  wrong,  are  merely  subjective  states.  They 
have  no  objective  reality.  We  are  sinful  and  guilty  only  in  our 
own  feelings,  not  in  the  sight  or  judgment  of  God. ^  How  entirely 
this  view  of  the  subject  destroys  all  true  sense  of  sin  ;  how  inconsist- 
ent it  is  with  all  responsibility ;  how  it  conflicts  with  the  testimony 
of  our  own  consciousness  and  with  the  teachings  of  Scripture,  must 
be  appai'ent  to  all  who  have  not  yielded  themselves  to  the  control 
of  the  pantheistic  principles  on  which  this  whole  system  is  founded. 

The  Sensuous  Theory. 

A  sixth  theory  places  the  source  and  seat  of  sin  in  the  sensuous 
nature  of  man.  We  are  composed  of  body  and  spirit.  Whatever 
may  be  the  relation  of  the  two,  tliey  cannot  fail  to  be  recognized 
as  in  some  sense  distinct  elements  of  our  nature.  All  attempts 
to  identify  them  not  only  lead  to  the  contradiction  of  self-evident 
truths,  but  to  the  degradation  of  the  spiritual.  If  the  mind  be  the 
product  of  the  body,  or  the  highest  function  of  matter,  or  if  the 
body  be  the  product  of  the  mind,  or  the  external  form  in  which 
mind  exists,  in  either  way  tiie  mind  is  materialized.  "It  is,"  says 
Miiller,^  "the  undeniable  teaciiing  of  history  that  the  obliterating 
the  distinction  between  s[)irit  and  nature  always  ends  in  natural- 

1  Schleiermacher's  Glau')enslehre.  Dr.  Gess's  Uebersicht  uber  das  theologische  System 
Schleiermacliers.  Miiller's  Lehre  Vo7i  der  Sdntfe,  vol.  i.  pp.  412-437.  Bretschneider's  -Dog. 
mnlik,  pp.  14-38  of  .Appendix  to  vol.  i.     Morell's  Philosophy  of  Religion. 

2  Vol.  i.  p.  363. 


§  2.]  PHILOSOPHICAL  THEORIES.  141 

izing  spirit,  and  never  in  spiritualizing  nature."  It  is  a  fact  of 
consciousness  and  of  common  consent  that  man  consists  of  soul  and 
body.  It  is  no  less  certain  that  by  the  body  he  is  connected  with 
the  external  world  or  nature,  and  by  the  soul  with  the  spiritual 
world  and  God  ;  that  he  has  wants,  desires,  appetites,  and  affec- 
tions, which  find  their  objects  in  the  material  world,  and  that  he 
has  other  instincts,  affections,  and  powers  which  find  their  objects 
in  the  spiritual  world.  It  is  self-evident  that  the  latter  are  higher 
and  ought  to  be  uniformly  and  always  dominant ;  it  is  a  fact  of  expe- 
rience that  the  reverse  is  the  case  ;  that  the  lower  prevail  over  the 
higher  ;  that  men  are  universally  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  and 
always  to  an  extent  that  is  degrading  and  sinful,  governed  by  their 
sensuous  nature.  They  prefer  the  seen  and  temporal  to  the  unseen 
and  eternal.  They  seek  the  gratification  which  is  to  be  found  in 
material  objects,  rather  than  the  blessedness  which  is  to  be  found 
in  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  Herein,  according  to  this  theory, 
consists  the  source  and  essence  of  sin.  Tliis  doctrine,  which  has 
prevailed  in  every  age  of  the  Church,  has  existed  in  different 
forms,  (1.)  In  that  of  the  Manichaean  system,  which  teaches  the 
essential  evil  of  matter.  (2.)  In  that  of  the  later  Romanism,  which 
teaches  that  man  as  originally  created  was  so  constituted  that  the 
soul  was  subject  to  the  body,  his  higher  powers  being  subordinate 
to  his  lower  or  sensuous  nature.  This  original  evil  in  his  constitution 
was,  in  the  case  of  Adam,  according  to  the  Romanists,  corrected  by 
the  supernatural  gift  of  original  righteousness.  Wiien  that  righte- 
ousness was  lost  by  the  fall,  the  sensuous  element  in  man's  nature 
became  ascendent.  Therein  consists  his  habitual  sinfulness,  and 
this  is  the  source  of  all  actual  transgressions.  (3.)  The  more 
common  form  of  this  theory  is  essentially  the  same  with  the  Romish 
doctrine,  except  that  it  does  not  refer  the  predominance  of  the  body 
over  tlie  soul  to  the  loss  of  original  righteousness.  The  fact  that 
men  are  governed  by  the  lower  rather  than  by  the  higher  ele- 
ments of  their  nature,  as  a  matter  of  experience,  is  accounted  for  in 
different  ways.  (1.)  Some  say  it  arises  from  the  relative  weakness 
of  the  higher  powers.  This  amounts  to  the  Leibnitzian  doctrine 
that  sin  is  due  to  the  limitations  of  our  nature,  or  the  feebleness 
and  liability  to  error  belonging  to  our  constitution  as  creatures. 
(2.)  Others  appeal  to  the  liberty  of  the  will.  Man  as  a  free  agent 
has  the  power  either  to  resist  or  to  submit  to  the  enticements  of 
the  flesh.  If  he  submits,  it  is  his  own  fault  and  sin.  There  is  no 
necessity  and  no  coercion  in  the  case.  But  if  this  submission  is 
universal  imd  uniform  it  must  have  a  universal  and  adequate  cause. 


142  PART  n.  ch.  vm.  — sin. 

That  cause  is  not  found  in  tlie  mere  liberty  of  man,  or  in  his  abihty  to 
submit.  It  must  be  that  the  cause  is  uniform  and  abiding,  and  such 
a  cause  can  only  be  found  in  the  very  constitution  of  man,  at  least 
in  his  present  state,  which  renders  the  sensuous  element  in  man 
more  powerful  than  the  spiritual.  (3.)  Others  again,  while  not 
denying  the  plenary  ability  of  man  to  resist  the  allurements  of 
sense,  account  for  the  universal  ascendency  of  the  lower  powers  by 
a  reference  to  the  order  of  development  of  our  nature.  We  are  so 
constituted,  or  we  come  into  the  world  in  such  a  state  that  the 
lower  or  sensuous  part  of  our  nature  invariably  and  of  necessity 
attains  strength  before  the  development  of  the  higher  powers.  The 
animal  propensities  of  the  child  are  strong,  while  reason  and  con- 
science are  weak.  Hence  the  lower  gain  such  an  ascendency  over 
the  higher  that  it  is  ever  afterwards  maintained. 

It  is  obvious,  however,  that  this  theory  in  any  of  its  forms  fails 
to  bring  out  the  real  nature  of  sin,  or  satisfactorily  to  account  for 
its  origin. 

1.  Sin  is  not  essentially  the  state  or  act  of  a  sensuous  nature. 
The  creatures  presented  in  Scripture  as  the  most  sinful  are  the 
fallen  spirits,  who  have  no  bodies  and  no  sensual  appetites. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  the  sins  which  are  the  most  offensive  in 
man,  and  which  most  degrade  him,  and  most  burden  his  conscience, 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  bod}^  Pride,  malice,  envy,  ambition, 
and,  above  all,  unbelief  and  enmity  to  God,  are  spiritual  sins.  They 
may  not  only  exist  in  beings  who  have  no  material  organization, 
but  in  the  soul  when  separated  from  the  body,  and  when  its  sensuous 
nature  is  extinct. 

3.  This  theory  tends  to  lower  our  sense  of  sin  and  guilt.  All 
moral  evil  becomes  mere  weakness,  the  yielding  of  the  feebler 
powers  of  the  spirit  to  the  stronger  forces  of  the  flesh.  If  sin 
invariably,  and  by  a  law  which  controls  men  in  their  present  state 
of  existence,  arises  from  the  very  constitution  of  their  nature  as 
sentient  beings,  then  the  responsibility  for  sin  must  be  greatly 
lessened,  if  not  entirely  destroyed. 

4.  If  the  body  be  the  seat  and  source  of  sin,  then  whatever  tends 
to  weaken  the  body  or  to  reduce  the  force  of  its  desires  must  render 
men  more  pure  and  virtuous.  If  this  be  so  then  monkery  and 
asceticism  have  a  foundation  in  truth.  They  are  wisely  adapted 
to  the  elevation  of  the  soul  above  the  influence  of  the  flesh  and  of 
the  world,  and  of  all  forms  of  evil.  All  experience,  however, 
pi'oves  the  reverse.  Even  when  those  who  thus  seclude  themselves 
from  the  world,  and  macerate  the  body,  are  sincere,  and  faithfully 


§  2.]  PHILOSOPHICAL   THEORIES.  143 

adhere  to  their  principles,  the  whole  tendency  of  their  discipline 
is  evil.  It  nourishes  pride,  self-righteousness,  formality,  and  false 
religion.  The  Pharisees,  in  the  judgment  of  Christ,  with  all  their 
strictness  of  living  and  constant  fasting,  were  further  from  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  than  publicans  and  harlots. 

5.  On  the  assumption  involved  in  this  theory,  the  old  should  be 
good.  In  them  the  lusts  of  the  flesh  become  extinct.  They  lose 
the  power  to  enjoy  what  pleases  the  eyes  or  pampers  the  tastes  of 
the  young.  The  world  to  them  has  lost  its  attractions.  The  body 
becomes  a  burden.  It  is  in  the  state  to  which  the  youthful  ascetic 
endeavours  to  reduce  his  corporeal  frame  by  abstinence  and  aus- 
terity ;  and  yet  the  older  the  man,  unless  renewed  by  the  grace  of 
God,  the  worse  the  sinner.  The  soul  is  more  dead,  more  insensible 
to  all  that  is  elevating  and  spiritual,  and  more  completely  alienated 
from  God ;  less  grateful  for  his  mercies,  less  afraid  of  his  wrath, 
and  less  affected  by  all  the  manifestations  of  his  glory  and  love. 
It  is  not  the  body,  therefore,  that  is  the  cause  of  sin. 

6.  This  theory  is  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  The 
Scriptures  do  indeed  refer  a  large  class  of  sins  to  the  sensual  nature 
of  man  ;  and  they  represent  the  flesh  (or  crdp^')  as  the  seat  of  sin 
and  the  source  of  all  its  manifestations  in  our  present  state.  They 
moreover,  use  the  word  a-apKLKo?,  carnal,  as  synonymous  with  cor- 
rupt or  sinful.  All  this,  however,  does  not  prove  that  they  teach 
that  man's  animal  or  sensuous  nature  is  the  seat  and  source  of  his 
sinfulness.  All  depends  on  the  sense  in  which  the  sacred  writers 
use  the  words  <rdp^  and  aapKLKo?  as  antithetical  to  ■n-i'cvp.a  and  Trvev/xar- 
iKos.  According  to  one  interpretation,  a-dp^  means  the  body  with 
its  animal  life,  its  instincts  and  appetites.  Or  as  Bretschneider 
defines  it  :  ^  "  Natura  visibilis  sen  animalis  tanquam  appetituum 
naturalium  fons  et  sedes,  et  quidem  in  malam  partem,  quatenus 
haec  natura  animalis,  legi  divin^e  non  adstricta,  appetit  contra 
legem,  igiturque  cupiditatum  et  peccatorum  est  mater."  If  such 
be  the  meaning  of  a-dp^,  then  o-apKtKos  means  animal  and  ipvx'-KO';  sen- 
suous. On  the  other  hand,  according  to  this  view,  irv^vjxa  means 
reason,  and  TrKcu/xartKo;,  the  reasonable,  that  is,  one  governed  by  the 
reason.  According  to  this  view,  the  aapKiKot  are  those  who  are 
controlled  by  their  senses  and  animal  nature  ;  and  the  -n-vevp-uTLKOL, 
those  who  are  governed  by  their  reason  and  higher  powers.  Ac- 
cording to  the  other  interpretation  of  these  terms,  a-dp^  means 
the  fallen  nature  of  man,  his  nature  as  it  now  is  ;  and  -n-ievp-a  the 
Holy  Ghost.    Tlien  the  aapKiKoi  are  the  unrenewed  or  natural  men, 

1  Lexicon  in  Novum  Testamentum,  sub  voce. 


144  PART  n.   Ch.  VIII.  — sin. 

i.  e.,  tliose  destitute  of  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  Trvtv/xaTLKoi,  are 
those  in  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells.  It  is  of  course  admitted 
that  the  word  (rdpi  is  often  used  in  Scripture  and  especially  in  St. 
Paul's  writings,  for  the  body  ;  then  for  what  is  external  and  ritual; 
then  for  what  is  perishing.  Mankind  when  designated  as  flesh  are 
presented  as  earthly,  feeble,  and  transient.  Besides  these  common 
and  admitted  meanings  of  the  word,  it  is  also  used  in  a  moral  sense. 
It  designates  man,  or  humanity,  or  human  nature  as  apostate  from 
God.  The  works  of  the  flesh,  therefore,  are  not  merely  sensual 
works,  but  sinful  works,  everything  in  man  that  is  evil.  Everything 
that  is  a  manifestation  of  his  nature  as  fallen,  is  included  under  the 
works  of  the  flesh.  Hence  to  this  class  are  referred  envy,  malice, 
pride,  and  contentions  ;  as  well  as  rioting  and  drunkenness,  Gal. 
v.  19-21.  To  walk  after  the  flesh  ;  to  be  carnally  minded;  to  be 
in  the  flesh,  etc.,  etc.  (see  Rom.  viii.  1-13),  are  all  Scriptural  modes 
of  expressing  the  state,  conduct,  and  life  of  the  men  of  the  world  of 
every  class.  The  meaning  o^ flesh,  however,  as  used  in  Paul's  writ- 
ings, is  most  clearly  determined  by  its  antithesis  to  Spirit.  That 
the  TTicu/ta  of  which  he  speaks  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  abundantly 
clear.  He  calls  it  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  the  Spirit  of  God,  the 
Spirit  which  is  to  quicken  our  mortal  bodies  ;  which  witnesses  with 
our  spirits  that  we  are  the  children  of  God ;  whose  dwelling  in  be- 
lievers makes  them  the  temple  of  God.  The  irvevfiaTLKoi,  or  spirit- 
ual, are  those  in  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells  as  the  controlling 
principle  of  their  lives.  The  Scriptures,  therefore,  are  directly  op- 
posed to  the  theory  which  makes  the  body  or  the  sensuous  nature  of 
man  the  source  of  sin,  and  its  essence  to  consist  in  yielding  to  our 
appetites  and  worldly  affections,  instead  of  obeying  the  reason  and 
conscience. 

The  Theory  that  all  Sin  consists  in  Selfishness, 

There  is  another  doctrine  of  the  nature  of  sin  which  belongs  to 
the  philosophical,  rather  than  to  the  theological  theories  on  the  sub- 
ject. It  makes  all  sin  to  consist  in  selfishness.  Selfishness  is  not 
to  be  confounded  with  self-love.  The  latter  is  a  natural  and  orig- 
inal principle  of  our  natux'e  and  of  the  nature  of  all  sentient  crea- 
tures, whether  rational  or  irrational.  Belonging  to  their  original 
constitution,  and  necessary  to  their  preservation  and  well-being,  it 
cannot  be  sinful.  It  is  simply  the  desire  of  happiness  which  is 
inseparable  from  the  nature  of  a  sentient  being.  Selfishness,  there- 
fore, is  not  mere  self-love,  but  the  undue  preference  of  our  own 
happiness  to  the  happiness  or  welfare  of  others.     According   to 


I 


§2.]  PHILOSOPHICAL  THEORIES.  14."; 

some,  tliis  preference  is  of  the  nature  of  a  desire  or  feeling ;  ac- 
cording to  others,  it  is  of  the  nature  of  a  purpose.  In  tlie  latter 
view,  all  sin  consists  in  the  purpose  to  seek  our  own  happiness 
rather  than  the  general  good,  or  happiness,  as  it  is  commonly 
expressed,'  of  the  universe.  In  either  view,  sin  is  the  undue 
preference  of  ourselves. 

This  theory  is  founded  on  the  following  principles,  or  is  an  es- 
sential element  in  the  following  system  of  doctrine  :  (1.)  Happi- 
ness is  the  greatest  good.  Whatever  tends  to  promote  the  great- 
est amount  of  happiness  is  for  that  reason  good,  and  whatever 
has  the  opposite  tendency  is  evil.  (2.)  As  happiness  is  the  only 
and  ultimate  good,  benevolence,  or  the  disposition  or  purpose  to  pro- 
mote happiness,  must  be  the  essence  and  sum  of  virtue.  (3.)  As 
God  is  infinite,  He  must  be  infinitely  benevolent,  and  therefore  it 
must  be  his  desire  and  purpose  to  produce  the  greatest  possible 
amount  of  happiness.  (4.)  The  universe  being  the  work  of  God 
must  be  designed  and  adapted  to  secure  that  end,  and  is  therefore 
the  best  possible  world  or  system  of  things.  (5.)  As  sin  exists  in 
the  actual  world,  it  must  be  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest 
good,  and  therefore  it  is  consistent,  as  some  say,  with  the  holiness 
of  God  to  permit  and  ordain  its  existence ;  or,  as  others  say,  to  cre- 
ate it.  (6.)  There  is  no  more  sin  in  the  world  than  is  necessary 
to  secure  the  greatest  happiness  of  the  universe. 

The  first  and  most  obvious  objection  to  this  whole  theory  has 
already  been  presented,  namely,  that  it  destroys  the  very  idea  of 
moral  good.  It  confounds  the  right  with  the  expedient.  It  thus 
contradicts  the  consciousness  and  intuitive  judgments  of  the  mind. 
It  is  intuitively  true  that  the  right  is  right  in  its  own  nature,  inde- 
pendently of  its  tendency  to  promote  happiness.  To  make  holiness 
only  a  means  to  an  end  ;  to  exalt  enjoyment  above  moral  excellence, 
is  not  only  a  perversion  and  a  degradation  of  the  higher  to  the  lower, 
but  it  is  the  utter  destruction  of  the  principle.  This  is  a  matter 
which,  properly  speaking,  does  not  admit  of  proof.  Axioms  can- 
not be  proved.  They  can  only  be  affirmed.  Should  a  man  deny 
that  sweet  and  bitter  differ,  it  would  be  impossible  to  prove  that 
there  is  a  difference  between  them.  We  can  only  appeal  to  our 
own  consciousness  and  aflSrm  that  we  perceive  the  difference.  And 
we  can  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  all  other  men,  who  also  affirm 
the  same  thing.  But  after  all  this  is  only  an  assertion  of  a  fact 
first  by  the  individual,  and  then  by  the  mass  of  mankind.  In  like 
manner  if  any  man  says  that  there  is  no  difference  between  the 
good  and  the  expedient,  that  a  thing  is  good  simply   because  it  is 

VOL.    II.  10 


146  PART  n.   Ch.  vin.  — sin. 

expedient ;  or,  if  he  should  sa_y  that  tliere  is  no  difference  between 
holiness  and  sin,  we  can  only  refer  to  our  own  consciousness 
and  to  the  common  consciousness  of  men,  as  contradictino;  his  as- 
sertioji.  We  know,  therefore,  from  the  very  constitution  of  our 
nature  that  the  right  and  the  expedient  are  not  identical  ideas  ; 
that  the  difference  is  essential  and  immutable.  And  we  know 
from  the  same  source,  and  with  equal  assurance  or  certainty,  that 
happiness  is  not  the  highest  good  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  that  holi- 
ness is  as  much  higher  than  happiness,  as  heaven  is  higher  than 
the  earth,  or  Christ  than  Epicurus.  (2.)  This  theory  is  as  much 
opposed  to  our  religious,  as  it  is  to  our  moral  nature.  Our  depend- 
ence is  upon  God  ;  our  allegiance  is  to  Him  ;  we  are  bound  to 
do  His  will  irrespective  of  all  consequences  ;  and  we  are  exalted 
and  purified  just  in  proportion  as  we  are  lost  in  Him,  adoring  his 
divine  perfections,  seeking  to  promote  his  glory,  and  recognizing 
that  in  fact  and  of  right  all  things  are  by  Him,  through  Him,  and 
for  Him.  According  to  this  theory,  however,  our  allegiance  is  to 
the  universe  of  sentient  beings.  We  are  bound  to  promote  their 
happiness.  This  is  our  highest  and  our  only  obligation.  There  can 
therefore  be  no  religion  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word.  Religion 
is  the  homage  and  allegiance  of  the  soul  to  an  infinitely  perfect  per- 
sonal Being,  to  whom  we  owe  our  existence,  who  is  the  source  of 
all  good,  and  for  whom  all  things  consist.  To  substitute  the  uni- 
verse for  this  Being,  and  to  resolve  all  duty  into  the  obligation  to 
promote  the  happiness  of  the  universe,  is  really  to  render  all  re- 
ligion impossible.  The  universe  is  not  our  God.  It  is  not  the  uni- 
verse that  we  love  ;  it  is  not  the  universe  that  we  adore  ;  it  is  not 
the  universe  that  we  fear.  It  is  not  the  favour  of  the  universe  that 
is  our  life,  nor  is  its  disapprobation  our  death.  (3.)  As  this  theory 
is  thus  opposed  to  our  moral  and  religious  nature,  it  is  evil  in  its 
practical  effects.  It  is  a  proverb,  a  maxim  founded  on  the  nature 
of  things  and  on  universal  experience,  that  the  world  is  governed 
by  ideas.  It  is  doubtful  whether  history  furnishes  any  more  strik- 
ing illustration  of  the  truth  of  this  maxim  than  that  furnisiied  bj 
the  operation  of  the  theory  that  all  virtue  is  founded  in  expediency  ; 
that  holiness  is  that  which  tends  to  produce  happiness.  When  the 
individual  man  adopts  that  principle,  his  whole  inward  and  outward 
life  is  determined  by  it.  Every  question  which  comes  up  for  de- 
cision, is  answered,  not  by  a  reference  to  the  law  of  God,  or  to  the 
instincts  of  his  moral  nature,  but  by  the  calculations  of  expediency. 
And  when  a  people  come  under  the  control  of  this  theory  they  in- 
variably and  of  necessity  become  calculating.     If  happiness  be  the 


§2.]  PHILOSOPHICAL   THEORIES.  147 

greatest  good,  and  whatever  seems  to  us  adapted  to  promote  hap- 
piness is  right,  then  God  and  tlie  moral  law  are  lost  sight  of.     Our 
own  happiness  is  apt  to  become  the  chief  good  for  us,  as  it  is  for  the 
universe.     (4.)  It  need  hardly  be  remarked  that  we  are  incompe- 
tent to  determine  what  course  of  conduct  will  issue  in  the  greatest 
amount  of  physical  good,  and  therefore  can  never  tell  what  is  right 
and  what  is  wrong.  It  may  be  said  that  we  are  not  left  to  our  own 
sagacity  to  decide  that  question.     The  law  of  God  as   revealed  in 
his  word,  is  a  divine  rule  by  which  we  can  learn  what  tends  to  hap- 
piness and  what  to  misery.     But  this  not  only  degrades  the  moral 
law  into  a  series  of  wise  maxims,  but  it  changes  the  motive  of  obe- 
dience.    We  obey  not  out  of  regard  to  the   authority  of  God,  but 
because  He  knows  better  than  we  what  will  promote  the  greatest 
good.     Besides  this,  in  the   questions   which   daily  present   them- 
selves for  decision,  we  are  fcM-ced  to  judge   for  ourselves  what  is 
right  and  wrong,  in  the  light  of  conscience  and  of  the  general  prin- 
ciples contained  in  the  Scriptures.     And  if  tiiese  principles  all  re- 
solve themselves  into  the  one  maxim,  that  that  is  right  which  pro- 
motes happiness,  we  are  obh'ged  to  resort  to  the   calculations  of 
expediency,  for  which  in  our  short-sighted  wisdom  we  are  utterly 
incompetent.      (5.)   Besides  all  this,  the  theory  assumes  that  sin, 
and  the  present  awful  amount  of  sin,  are  the  necessary  means  of 
the  greatest  good.     What  then  becomes  of  the  distinction  between 
good  and  evil?     If  that  is  good  which  tends  to  promote  the  great- 
est happiness,  and  if  sin  is  necessary  to  secure  the  greatest  happi- 
ness, then  sin  ceases  to  be  sin,  and   becomes  a  good.      Then  also 
it  must  be  right  to  do  evil  that  good  may  come.     How,  asks   the 
Apostle,  on  this  principle,  can  God  judge  the  world  ?  If  the  sins  of 
men  not  only  in  fact  promote  the  higiiest  end,  but  if  a  man  in  sin- 
ning has  the  purpose  and  desire  to  cooperate  with  God  in  producing 
^the  greatest  amount  of  happiness,  how  can  he  be  condemned  ?     If 
virtue  or  holiness  is  right  simply  because  it  tends  to   produce  the 
greatest  happiness,  and  if  sin  also  tends  to  the   same   result,  then 
L       the  man  who  sins  with  a  view  to  the  greatest  good  is  just  as  virtu- 
Bt     ous  as  the  man  who  practices  holiness  with  the  same  end   in  view. 
^B   It  may  be  said  that  it  is  a  contradiction  to  say  that  a  man  sins  with 
^H   a  truly  benevolent  purpose  ;  for  the  essence  of  virtue  is  to  purpose 
^H  the  greatest  good,  and  therefore  whatever  is  done  in  the  execution 
^^m  of  that  purpose,  is   virtuous.     Exactly  so.     The  objection  itself 
^V  shows  that  right  becomes  wrong  and  wrong  right,  according  to  the 
^H    design  with  which  it  is  committed  or  performed.     And   therefore, 
^H  if  a   man   lies,   steals,   or  murders  with  a  design  to   promote  the 

I 


148  PART  n.    Ch.  vui.  — sin. 

good  of  society,  of  the  church,  or  of  the  universe,  he  is  a  virtuous 
man.  It  was  principally  for  tlie  adoption  of,  and  the  carrying  into 
practice  this  doctrine,  tliat  the  Jesuits  became  an  abomination 
in  the  sight  of  Cliristendom  and  were  banished  from  all  civilized 
countries.  Jesuits  were  however,  unhappily  not  its  only  advocates. 
The  principle  has  been  widely  disseminated  in  books  on  morals, 
and  has  been  adopted  by  theologians  as  the  foundation  of  their 
whole  system  of  Christian  doctrine.  (6.)  If  happiness  be  not  the 
highest  good,  then  benevolence  is  not  the  sum  of  all  excellence,  and 
selfishness  as  the  opposite  of  benevolence,  cannot  be  the  essence  of 
sin.  On  this  point,  again,  appeal  may  be  safely  made  to  our  own 
consciousness  and  to  the  common  consciousness  of  men.  Our  moral 
nature  teaches  us,  on  the  one  hand,  that  all  virtue  cannot  be  re- 
solved into  benevolence  :  justice,  fidelity,  humility,  forbearance,  pa- 
tience, constancy,  spiritual  mindedness,  the  love  of  God,  gratitude  to 
Christ,  and  zeal  for  his  glory,  do  not  reveal  themselves  in  conscious- 
ness as  forms  of  benevolence.  They  are  as  distinct  to  the  moral 
sense,  as  red,  blue,  and  green  are  distinct  to  the  eye.  On  the  other 
hand,  unbelief,  hardness  of  heart,  ingratitude,  impenitence,  malice, 
and  enmity  towards  God,  are  not  modifications  of  selfishness.  These 
attempts  at  simplification  are  not  only  unphilosophical,  but  also  dan- 
gerous ;  as  they  lead  to  confounding  things  which  differ,  and,  as  we 
have  seen,  to  denying  the  essential  nature  of  moral  distinctions. 

The  doctrine  which  makes  all  sin  to  consist  in  selfishness,  as  it  has 
been  generally  held,  especially  in  this  country,  considers  selfishness 
as  the  opposite  of  benevolence  agreeably  to  the  theory  Avhich  has  just 
been  considered.  There  are  others,  however,  that  mean  by  it  the 
opposite  to  the  love  of  God.  As  God  is  the  proper  centre  of  the 
soul  and  the  sum  of  all  perfection,  apostasy  from  Him  is  the  essence 
of  sin  ;  apostasy  from  God  involves,  it  is  said,  a  foiling  back  into 
ourselves,  and  making  self  the  centre  of  our  being.  Thus  Miiller,* 
Tholuck,^  and  many  others,  make  alienation  from  God  the  primary 
principle  of  sin.  But  dethroning  God  necessitates  the  putting  an 
idol  in  his  place.  That  idol,  Augustine  and  after  him  numerous 
writers  of  different  schools,  say,  is  the  creature.  As  the  Apostle 
concisely  describes  the  wickedness  of  men,  by  saying,  that  they 
"  worshipped  and  served  the  creature  more  than  the  Creator." 
But  Miiller  argues  that  as  it  is  self  the  sinner  seeks  in  the  creature, 
the  real  principle  of  sin  consists  in  putting  self  in  the  place  of  God, 
and  in  making  it  the  highest  end  of  life  and  its  gratification  or 

1  Lehre  von  der  Siinde,  toI  i.  pp.  134-158. 

2  Von  der  Siinde  und  vom  Versohnei;  p.  32. 


§3.]        DOCTRINE  OF  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.        149 

satisfaction  the  great  object  of  pursuit.  It  of  course  is  not  denied, 
that  selfishness,  in  some  of  its  forms,  inckides  a  kxrge  class  of 
the  sins  of  which  men  are  guilty.  What  is  objected  to  is,  the 
making  selfishness  the  essence  of  all  sin,  or  the  attempt  to  reduce 
all  the  manifestations  of  moral  evil  to  this  one  principle.  This 
cannot  be  done.  There  is  disinterested  sin  as  well  as  disinterested 
benevolence.  A  man  may  as  truly  and  as  deliberately  sacrifice 
himself  in  sinning,  as  in  doing  good.  Many  parents  have  violated 
the  law  of  God  not  for  their  own  benefit,  but  for  the  benefit  of 
their  children.  It  may  be  said  that  this  is  only  a  form  of  selfish- 
ness, because  the  happiness  of  their  children  is  their  happiness, 
and  the  sin  is  committed  for  the  gratification  of  their  parental  feel- 
ings. To  this,  however,  it  may  be  answered,  first,  that  it  is  con- 
tradictory to  say  that  what  is  done  for  another  is  done  for  ourselves. 
When  a  mother  sacrifices  wealth  and  life  for  her  child,  although 
she  acts  under  the  impulse  of  the  maternal  instinct,  she  acts  dis- 
intei'estedly.  The  sacrifice  consists  in  preferring  her  child  to  her- 
self. In  the  second  place,  if  an  act  ceases  to  be  virtuous  when  its 
performance  meets  and  satisfies  some  demand  of  our  nature,  then 
no  act  can  be  virtuous.  When  a  man  does  any  good  work,  he 
satisfies  his  conscience.  If  he  does  an  act  of  kindness  to  the  poor, 
if  he  devotes  himself  to  the  relief  of  the  sick  or  the  prisoner,  he 
gratifies  his  benevolent  feelings.  If  he  seeks  the  favour  and  fel- 
lowship  of  God,  and  consecrates  himself  to  his  service,  he  gratifies 
the  noblest  principles  of  his  nature,  and  experiences  the  highest 
enjoyment  of  which  he  is  susceptible.  It  is  not  necessary  there- 
fore, in  order  that  an  act,  wdiether  right  or  wrong,  should  be  dis- 
interested, that  it  should  not  minister  to  our  gratification.  All 
depends  on  the  motive  for  which  it  is  done.  If  that  motive  be  the 
happiness  of  another  and  not  our  own,  the  act  is  disinterested.  It 
is  contrary,  therefore,  to  the  testimony  of  every  man's  conscious- 
ness to  say  that  selfishness  is  the  essential  element  of  sin.  There 
is  no  selfishness  in  malice,  nor  in  enmity  to  God.  These  are  far 
highei;  forms  of  evil  than  mere  selfishness.  Tiie  true  nature  of 
sin  is  alienation  from  God  and  opposition  to  his  character  and  will. 
It  is  the  opposite  of  holiness  and  does  not  admit  of  being  reduced 
to  any  one  principle,  either  the  love  of  the  creature  or  the  love  of 
self. 

§  3.    The  Doctrine  of  the  Early   Church. 
The  theories  already  considered  are  called  philosophical,  either 
because  they  concern  the  metaphysical   nature  of  sin,  or  because 


150  PART  II.   ch.  vin.  — sin. 

they  are  founded  on  some  philosophical  principle.  The  moral  or 
theological  doctrines  on  the  subject  are  so  designated  because  they 
are  founded  on  what  are  assumed  to  be  the  teachings  of  our  moral 
nature  or  of  the  word  of  God.  So  far  as  tiie  early  Church  is  con- 
cerned, the  docti'ine  respecting  sin  was  stated  only  in  general  terms. 
In  almost  all  cases  the  explicit  and  discriminating  doctrinal  affirma- 
tions receiyed  their  form  as  counter  statements  to  erroneous  views. 
So  long  as  the  truth  was  not  denied  the  Church  was  content  to 
hold  and  state  it  in  the  simple  form  in  which  it  is  presented  in  the 
Bible.  But  when  positions  were  assumed  which  were  inconsistent 
with  the  revealed  doctrine,  or  when  one  truth  was  so  stated  as  to 
contradict  some  other  truth,  it  became  necessary  to  be  more  ex- 
plicit, and  to  frame  such  an  expression  of  the  doctrine  as  should 
comprehend  all  that  God  had  revealed  on  the  subject.  This  process 
in  the  determination,  or  rather  in  the  definition  of  doctrines  was  of 
necessity  a  gradual  one.  It  was  only  as  one  error  after  another 
arose  in  the  Church,  that  the  truth  came  to  be  distinguished  from 
them  severally  by  more  explicit  and  guarded  statements.  As  the 
earliest  heresies  were  those  of  Gnosticism  and  Manicheism  in  which, 
in  different  forms,  sin  was  represented  as  a  necessary  evil  having 
its  origin  in  a  cause  independent  of  God  and  beyond  the  control  of 
the  creature,  the  Church  was  called  upon  to  deny  those  errors,  and 
to  assert  that  sin  was  neither  necessary  nor  eternal,  but  had  its 
origin  in  the  free  will  of  rational  creatures.  In  the  struggle  with 
Manicheism  the  whole  tendency  of  the  Church  was  to  exalt  the 
liberty  and  ability  of  man,  in  order  to  maintain  the  essential  doc- 
trine, then  so  variously  assailed,  that  sin  is  a  moral  evil  for  which 
man  is  to  be  condemned,  and  not  a  calamity  for  which  he  is  to  be 
pitied.  It  was  the  unavoidable  consequence  of  the  unsettled  state 
of  doctrinal  formulas,  that  conflicting  statements  should  be  made 
even  by  those  who  meant  to  be  the  advocates  of  the  truth,  —  not 
only  different  writers,  but  the  samo  writer,  would  on  different  occa- 
sions, present  inconsistent  statements.  In  the  midst  of  these  in- 
consistencies the  following  points  were  constantly  insisted  uj)on. 
(1.)  That  all  men  in  their  present  state  are  sinners.  (2.)  That 
this  universal  sinfulness  of  men  had  its  historical  and  causal  origin 
in  the  voluntary  apostasy  of  Adam.  (3.)  That  such  is  the  present 
state  of  human  nature  that  salvation  can  be  attained  in  no  other 
way  than  through  Christ,  and  by  the  assistance  of  his  Spirit. 
(4.)  That  even  infants  as  soon  as  born  need  regeneration  and 
redemption,  and  can  be  saved  only  through  the  merit  of  Christ. 
These  great  truths,  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of  the  gospel,  en- 


§3.]  DOCTRINE   OF  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.  151 

tered  into  the  general  faith  of  the  Church  before  they  were  so  stren- 
uously asserted  by  Augustine  in  his  controversy  with  Pelagius. 
It  is  true  that  many  assertions  may  be  quoted  from  the  Greek 
fathers  inconsistent  with  some  of  the  propositions  above  stated. 
But  the  same  writers  in  other  passages  avow  their  faitli  in  these 
primary  Scriptural  truths ;  and  they  are  implied  in  the  prayers  and 
ordinances  of  the  Church,  and  were  incorporated  at  a  later  period, 
in  the  public  confessions  of  the  Greeks,  as  well  as  of  the  Latins. 
Clemens  Alexandrinus^  says:  to  yap  efa/xapraveiv ttSo-iv  t/xcfiVTov  Koi  kol- 
v6v.  Justin  says,^  To  ycVos  rwr  avdpwTTwv  dirb  tov  *A5a/x  viro  Odvarov  koX 
irXdv-qv  ttjv  tov  6(f)€0)<s  CTrcTrrcoKet,  although    he  adds,  Trapa  Tr]v    iSiav   alriav 

cKda-Tov  avTwv  TTovrjpevo-aixivov.  Origen  says,  ^  "  Si  Levi  ....  in  lura- 
bis  Abrahse  fuisse  perhibetur,  multo  magis  onines  homines  qui  in 
hoc  mundo  nascuntur  et  nati  sunt,  in  lumbis  erant  Adas,  cum  adhuc 
esset  in  Paradiso ;  et  omnes  homines  cum  ipso  vel  in  ipso  expulsi 
sunt  de  Paradiso."  Athanasius  says,*  Havrcs  ovu  ol  i^  ASa/x  yevo/j.- 
evoL  iv  dfiapTLafi  crvWap-jidvovTai  ttj  tov  Trpoira.Topo<i  KaraSiKr]  —  dUKvvaiv  cos 
£t  apX^^  V  d.vp9p<ji>Tr(i)V  (jivtri';  vtto  ttjv  afiapriav  TriirTUiKey  vrrb  t7J<;  iv  Em  irapa 
ySao-cws,  Koi  VTTO  Kardpav  rj  yevvrja-Ls  yeyovev.  Ambrose  says,^  *'  Manifes- 
tum  itaque  in  Adam  omnes  peccasse  quasi  in  massa  :  ipse  enim  per 
peccatum  corruptus,  quos  genuit  omnes  nati  sunt  sub  peccato.  Ex 
eo  igitur  cuncti  peccatores,  quia  ex  ipso  sumus  omnes."  Cyprian 
says  :  ^  "  Si  .  .  .  .  baptismo  atque  a  gratia  nemo  prohibetur  ; 
quanto  magis  prohiberi  non  debet  infans,  qui  recens  natus  niliil  pec- 
cavit,  nisi  quod  secundum  Adam  carnaliter  natus,  contagium  mortis 
antiquas  prima  nativitate  contraxit?  qui  ad  remissam  peccatorum 
accipiendam  hoc  ipso  facilius  accedit,  quod  illi  remittuntur  non 
propria,  sed  aliena  peccata,"  Again  he  says  :  "  Fuerant  et  ante 
Christum  viri  insignes,  sed  in  peccatis  concepti  et  nati,  nee  originali 
nee  personali  caruere  delicto."  These  writers,  says  Gieseler," 
taught  that  through  Christ  and  his  obedience  on  the  tree  was 
healed  the  original  disobedience  of  man  in  reference  to  the  tree  of 
knowledge  ;  that  as  we  offended  God  in  the  first  Adam  by  trans- 
gression, so  through  the  second  Adam  we  are  reconciled  to  God  ; 
that  Christ  has  freed  us  from  the  power  of  the  devil  to  which  we 
were  subjected  by  the  sin  of  Adam ;  that  Christ  has  regained  for 

1  Pcedagogus,  ill.  12;  Works,  edit.  Paris  1641,  p.  262,  c. 

2  Dialogus  cum  Tryphone  JucIcbo,  88;    Works,  edit.  Cologne,  1636,  p.  316,  a. 

8  In  Epistolam  ad  Romanos,  lib.  v.  sect.  1;  Woi-ks,  edit.  Wirceburgi,  1791,  vol.  xv.  p.  218. 

*  Expos,  in  Psalmos  ;  in  Ps.  1.  (li.),  7. 

6  In  Epistolam  ad  Romanos,  v.  12:    Works,  Paris,  1661,  vol.  iii.  p.  269,  a. 

6  EpistolaWw.  edit.  Bremen,  1690;  p.  161,  of  third  set. 

T  Kirchengeschichie,  edit.  Bonn,  1855,  rol.  vi.  p.  180. 


152  PART  11.     Ch.   VIII.  — Sm. 

us  life  and  immortality.^  It  is  not  maintained  that  the  Greek 
fathers  held  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  in  the  form  in  which  it  was 
afterwards  developed  by  Augustine,  but  they  nevertheless  taught 
that  the  race  fell  in  Adam,  that  they  all  need  redemption,  and  that 
redemption  can  only  be  obtained  through  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.^ 

§  4.  Pelagian   Theory. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century,  Pelaglus,  Coelestius,  and 
Julian,  introduced  a  new  theory  as  to  the  nature  of  sin  and  the 
state  of  man  since  the  fall,  and  of  our  relation  to  Adam.  That 
their  doctrine  was  an  innovation  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  it  was 
universally  rejected  and  condemned  as  soon  as  it  was  fully  under- 
stood. They  were  all  men  of  culture,  ability,  and  exemplary 
character.  Pelagius  was  a  Briton,  whether  a  native  of  Brittany  or 
of  what  is  now  called  Great  Britain,  is  a  matter  of  doubt.  He  was 
by  profession  a  monk,  although  a  layman.  Coelestius  was  a  teacher 
and  jurist ;  Julian  an  Italian  bishop.  The  radical  principle  of  the 
Pelagian  theory  is,  that  ability  limits  obligation.  "  If  I  ought,  I 
can,"  is  the  aphorism  on  which  the  whole  system  rests.  Augus- 
tine's celebrated  prayer,  "  Da  quod  jubes,  et  jube  quod  vis,"  was 
pronounced  by  Pelagius  an  absurdity,  because  it  assumed  that  God 
can  demand  more  than  man  render,  and  what  man  must  receive  as 
a  gift.  In  opposition  to  this  assumption  he  laid  down  the  principle 
that  man  must  have  plenary  ability  to  do  and  to  be  whatever  can 
be  righteously  required  of  him.  "  Iterum  quserendum  est,  pecca- 
tum  voluntatis  an  necessitatis  est  ?  Si  necessitatis  est,  peccatum 
non  est ;  si  voluntatis,  vitari  potest.  Iterum  quserendum  est, 
utrumne  debeat  homo  sine  peccato  esse  ?  Procul  dubio  debet.  Si 
debet  potest ;  si  non  potest,  ergo  non  debet.  Et  si  non  debet  homo 
esse  sine  peccato,  debet  ergo  cum  peccato  esse,  et  jam  peccatum 
non  erit,  si  illud  deberi  constiterit."  ^ 

1  Irenjeus,  V.  xvi.  3;  TForits,  edit.  Leipzig,  1853;  vol.  i.  p.  762.  "  Obediens  facttis  est 
usque  ad  mortem,  moi-tem  auiem  crucis,F\u\.u.  8;  earn  qu*  in  ligno  facta  fuerat  inobedi- 
entiam,  per  earn  qiipe  in  ligno  fuerat  obedientiam  sanans  ....  In  primo  quidem 
Adam  offendimus,  non  facientes  ejus  prasceptum;  in  secundo  autem  Adam  reconciliati 
sumus,  obedientes  usque  ad  mortem  facti."  And  again,  Ibid.  v.  xxiii.  1,  p.  546  :  "  Quo- 
niam  Deus  invictus  et  magnanimis  est,  magnanimem  quidem  se  exbibuit  ad  correptionem 
hominis,  et  probationem  omnium,  ....  ;  per  secundum  autem  hominem  alligavit 
fortem  et  diripuit  ejus  vasa  et  evacuavit  mortem,  vivificans  eum  hominem,  qui  fuerit  morti- 
ticatus." 

2  J.  G  Walch :  De  Pelagianismo  ante  Pelagium.  J.  Hern :  De  Sententiis  eorum  Patrwn 
quorum  aucloriias  ante  Auguslinum  plurimmn  valuif.  Neander's  Church  History,  vol.  i. 
Gieseler's  Kirchenffeschichte,  vol.  vi.  Shedd's  History  of  Christian  Doctrine.  Also  Miin- 
scher's,  Meyer's,  and  Klee's  Dogmenyeschichte. 

8  Gieseler,  vol.  i. 


§4.]  PELAGIAN  THEORY.  153 

The  intimate  conviction  that  men  can  be  responsible  for  nothing 
which  is  not  in  their  power,  led,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  Pelagian 
doctrine  of  the  freedom  of  the  will.  It  was  not  enough  to  consti- 
tute free  agency  that  the  agent  should  be  self-determined,  or  that 
all  his  volitions  should  be  determined  by  his  own  inward  states.  It 
was  required  that  he  should  have  power  over  those  states.  Lib- 
erty of  the  will,  according  to  the  Pelagians,  is  plenary  power,  at  all 
times  and  at  every  moment,  of  choosing  between  good  and  evil,  and 
of  being  either  holy  or  unholy.  Whatever  does  not  thus  fall  within 
the  imperative  power  of  the  will  can  have  no  moral  character. 
"  Omne  bonum  ac  malum,  quo  vel  laudabiles  vel  vituperabiles 
sumus,  non  nobiscum  oritur,  sed  agitur  a  nobis :  capaces  enim  utri- 
usque  rei,  non  pleni  nascimur,  et  ut  sine  virtute,  ita  et  sine  vitio 
procreamur :  atque  ante  actionem  propriae  voluntatis,  id  solum  in 
homine  est,  quod  Deus  condidit."^  Again,  "  Volens  namque  Deus 
rationabilem  creaturam  voluntarii  boni  munere  et  liberi  arbitrii 
potestate  donare,  utriusque  partis  possibilitatem  honiini  inserendo 
proprium  ejus  fecit,  esse  quod  velit ;  ut  boni  ac  mali  capax,  natural- 
iter  utrumque  posset,  et  ad  alterumque  voluntatem  deflecteret." 

2.  Sin,  therefore,  consists  only  in  the  deliberate  choice  of  evil. 
It  presupposes  knowledge  of  what  is  evil,  as  well  as  the  full  power 
of  choosing  or  rejecting  it.     Of  course  it  follows,  — 

3.  That  there  can  be  no  such  thino;  as  orio-inal  sin,  or  inherent 
hereditary  corruption.  Men  are  born,  as  stated  in  the  foregoing 
quotation,  ut  sine  virtute^  ita  sine  vitio.  In  other  words  men  are 
born  into  the  world  since  the  fall  in  the  same  state  in  which  Adam 
was  created.  Julian  says:^  "Nihil  est  peccati  in  homine,  si  nihil  est 
proprise  voluntatis,  vel  assensionis.  Tu  autem  concedis  nihil  fuisse 
in  parvulis  propriae  voluntatis :  non  ego,  sed  ratio  concludit ;  nihil 
igitur  in  eis  esse  peccati."  This  was  the  point  on  which  the  Pela- 
gians principally  insisted,  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  nature  of  sin 
that  it  should  be  transmitted  or  mherited.  If  nature  was  sinful, 
then  God  as  the  author  of  nature  must  be  the  author  of  sin.  Ju- 
lian ^  therefore  says  :  "  Nemo  naturaliter  mains  est ;  sed  quicunque 
reus  est,  moribns,  non  exordiis  accusatur." 

4.  Consequently  Adam's  sin  injured  only  himself.  This  was  one 
of  the  formal  charges  presented  against  the  Pelagians  in  the  Svnod 
of  Diospolis.  Pelagius  endeavored  to  answer  it,  by  saying  that  the 
sin  of  Adam  exerted  the  influence  of  a  bad  example,  and  in  that 

1  Ve\Ag\\x%,ApudAugtistinumdePtccatoOriginali,li\  PTor/rs,  edit.  Benedictines,  vol.  x.  p. 
573,  a,  b. 

2  Aptid  August inum  Opus  Imperfectum  contra  Julianuin,  i.  60;    Tl'or^-s,  vol.  x.  p.  1511,  d. 

3  J/jiJ. 


154  PART  n.     Ch.  Vm.  — SIN". 

sense,  and  to  that  degree,  Injured  his  posterity.  But  he  denied 
that  there  is  any  causal  relation  between  the  sin  of  Adam  and  the 
sinfulness  of  his  race,  or  that  death  is  a  penal  evil.  Adam  would 
have  died  from  the  constitution  of  his  nature,  whether  he  had 
sinned  or  not ;  and  his  posterity,  whether  infant  or  adult,  die  from 
like  necessity  of  nature.  As  Adam  was  in  no  sense  the  repre- 
sentative of  his  race,  as  they  did  not  stand  their  probation  in  him, 
each  man  stands  a  probation  for  himself;  and  is  justified  or  con- 
demned solely  on  the  ground  of  his  own  individual  personal  acts. 

5.  As  men  come  into  the  world  without  the  contamination  of 
original  sin,  and  as  they  have  plenary  power  to  do  all  that  God 
requires,  they  may,  and  in  many  cases  do,  live  without  sin  ;  or  if 
at  any  time  they  transgress,  they  may  turn  unto  God  and  perfectly 
obey  all  his  commandments.  Hence  Pelagius  taught  that  some 
men  had  no  need  for  themselves  to  repeat  the  petition  in  the  Lord's 
prayer,  "  Forgive  us  our  trespasses."  Before  the  Synod  of  Car- 
thage one  of  the  grounds  on  which  he  was  charged  with  heresy 
was,  that  he  taught,  "  et  ante  adventum  Domini  fuerunt  homines 
impeccabiles,  id  est,  sine  peccato." 

6.  Another  consequence  of  his  principles  which  Pelagius  iina- 
voidably  drew  was  that  men  could  be  saved  without  the  gospel. 
As  free  will  in  the  sense  of  plenary  ability,  belongs  essentially  to 
man  as  much  as  reason,  men  whether  Heathen,  Jews,  or  Christians^ 
may  fully  obey  the  law  of  God  and  attain  eternal  life.  The  only 
difference  is  that  under  the  light  of  the  Gospel,  this  perfect  obe- 
dience is  rendered  more  easy.  One  of  his  doctrines,  tlierefore,  was 
that  "  lex  sic  mittit  ad  regnum  coelorum,  quomodo  et  evange- 
lium." 

7.  The  Pelagian  system  denies  the  necessity  of  grace  in  the 
sense  of  the  supernatural  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  the 
Scriptures,  however,  speak  so  fully  and  constantly  of  the  grace  of 
God  as  manifested  and  exercised  in  the  salvation  of  men,  Pelagius 
could  not  avoid  acknowledging  that  fact.  By  grace,  however,  he 
understood  everything  which  we  derive  from  the  goodness  of  God. 
Our  natural  faculties  of  reason  and  free  will,  the  revelation  of  the 
truth  whether  in  his  works  or  his  word,  all  the  providential  bless- 
ings and  advantages  which  men  enjoy,  flxll  under  the  Pelagian  idea 
of  grace.  Augustine  says,  Pelagius  represented  grace  to  be  the 
natural  endowments  of  men,  which  inasmuch  as  they  are  the  gift 
of  God  are  grace.  "  Ille  (Pelagius)  Dei  gratiam  non  appellat  nisi' 
naturam,  qua  libero  arbitrio  conditi  sumus."  ^      And    Julian,   he 

1  Epistnla  clxxix.  3;    Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  vol.  ii.  pp.  9-11,  d,  942,  a. 


I 


§4.]  PELAGIAN   THEORY.  155 

says,  includes  under  the  term  all  the  gifts  of  God.  "  Ipsi  gratiae, 
beneficioruin  quae  nobis  prsestare  non  desinit,  augmenta  reputa- 
mus."  ^ 

8.  As  infants  ax'e  destitute  of  moral  character,  baptism  in  their 
case  cannot  either  symbolize  or  effect  the  remission  of  sin.  It  is, 
according  to  Pelagius,  only  a  sign  of  their  consecration  to  God. 
He  believed  that  none  but  the  baptized  were  at  death  admitted  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  in  the  Christian  sense  of  that  term,  but  held 
that  unbaptized  infants  were  nevertheless  partakers  of  eternal  life. 
By  that  term  was  meant  what  was  afterwards  called  by  the  school- 
men, limhus  infantum.  This  was  described  as  that  fte'o-os  tottos 
KoAacrew?  Kat  TrapaSuauv,  €ts  ov  kol  to.  d/3a7rri(rra  f3pe<j)r]  /xerart^c'/xcva  tyv 
IxaKafHuis.^  Pelagius  and  his  doctrines  were  condemned  by  a  coun- 
cil at  Carthage,  A.  D.  412.  He  was  exonerated  at  the  Synods  of 
Jerusalem  and  Diospolis,  in  415  ;  but  condemned  a  second  time  in 
a  synod  of  sixty  bishops  at  Carthage  in  416.  Zosimus,  bishop  of 
Rome,  at  first  sided  with  the  Pelagians  and  censured  the  action  of 
the  African  bishops :  but  when  their  decision  was  confirmed  by  the 
general  council  of  Carthage  in  418,  at  which  two  hundred  bishops 
were  present,  he  joined  in  the  condemnation  and  declared  Pelagius 
and  his  friends  excommunicated.  In  431  the  Eastern  Church 
joined  in  this  condemnation  of  the  Pelagians,  in  the  General  Synod 
held  at  Ephesus.^ 

Arguments  against  the  Pelagian  Doctrine. 

The  objections  to  the  Pelagian  views  of  the  nature  of  sin  will 
of  necessity  come  under  consideration,  when  the  Scriptural  and 
Protestant  doctrine  comes  to  be  presented.  It  is  sufficient  for  the 
present  to  state,  — 

1.  That  the  fundamental  principle  on  which  the  whole  system  is 
founded  contradicts  the  common  consciousness  of  men.  It  is  not 
true,  as  our  own  conscience  teaches  us,  that  our  obligation  is  limited 
by  our  ability.  Every  man  knows  that  he  is  bound  to  be  better 
than  he  is,  and  better  than  he  can  make  himself  by  any  exertion 
of  his  will.  We  are  bound  to  love  God  perfectly,  but  we  know 
that  such  perfect  love  is  beyond  our  power.  We  recognize  the 
obligation  to  be  free  from  all  sin,  and  absolutely  conformed  to  the 

1   Opus  Imperfecfum  contra  Juliannm,  i.  94;    Woi-ks,  vol.  x.  p.  1548,  b. 

'■'  On  tlift  distinction  between  vUa  ceterna  and  regnum  ccelorum  see  Pelagius  Apvd  Augudi- 
num  de  Peccalorum  Merilis  et  Remissione,  i.  58;   Works,  vol.  x.  p.  231.     Cone.  Carth.  418. 

^  WisRer's  Augustinism  and  Pelaginnism.  Guericke's  Church  History,  §§  91-93.  Ritter's 
Geschickle  der  Christlichen  Philosophie,  vol.  ii.  pp.  337-443;  and  all  the  church  histories 
and  histories  of  doctrine. 


156  PART  II.   ch.  vin.  — sin. 

perfect  law  of  God.  Yet  no  man  is  so  infatuated  or  so  blinded  to 
his  real  character  as  really  to  believe  that  he  either  is  thus  perfect, 
or  has  the  power  to  make  himself  so.  It  is  the  daily  and  hourly 
prayer  or  aspiration  of  every  saint  and  of  every  sinner  to  be  deliv- 
ered from  the  bondage  of  evil.  The  proud  and  malignant  would 
gladly  be  humble  and  benevolent ;  the  covetous  would  rejoice  to 
be  liberal ;  the  infidel  longs  for  faith,  and  the  hardened  sinner  for 
repentance.  Sin  is  in  its  own  nature  a  burden  and  a  torment,  and 
although  loved  and  cherished,  as  the  cups  of  the  drunkard  are  cher- 
ished, yet,  if  emancipation  could  be  effected  by  an  act  of  the  will,  sin 
would  cease  to  reign  in  any  rational  creature.  There  is  no  truth, 
therefore,  of  whicii  men  are  more  intimately  convinced  than  that 
they  are  the  slaves  of  sin  ;  that  they  cannot  do  the  good  they 
Avould ;  and  that  they  cannot  alter  their  character  at  wilh  There 
is  no  principle,  therefore,  more  at  variance  with  the  common  con- 
sciousness of  men  than  the  fundamental  principle  of  Pelagianism 
that  our  ability  limits  our  obligation,  that  we  are  not  bound  to  be 
better  than  we  can  make  ourselves  by  a  volition. 

2.  It  is  no  less  revolting  to  the  moral  nature  of  man  to  assert, 
as  Pelagianism  teaches,  that  nothing  is  sinful  but  the  deliberate 
transgression  of  known  law  ;  that  there  is  no  moral  character  in 
feelings  and  emotions ;  that  love  and  hatred,  malice  and  benevolence, 
considered  as  affections  of  the  mind,  are  alike  indifferent ;  that  the 
command  to  love  God  is  an  absurdity,  because  love  is  not  under  the 
control  of  the  will.  All  our  moral  judgments  must  be  perverted 
before  we  can  assent  to  a  system  involving  such  consequences. 

3.  In  the  third  place,  the  Pelagian  doctrine,  whicli  confounds 
freedom  with  ability,  or  which  makes  the  liberty  of  a  free  agent  to 
consist  in  the  power  to  determine  his  character  by  a  volition,  is 
contrary  to  every  man's  consciousness.  We  feel,  and  cannot  but 
acknowledge,  that  we  are  free  when  we  are  self-determined  ;  while 
at  the  same  time  we  are  conscious  that  the  controlling  states  of 
the  mind  are  not  under  the  power  of  the  will,  or,  in  other  words, 
are  not  under  our  own  power.  A  theory  which  is  founded  on 
identifying  things  which  are  essentially  different,  as  liberty  and 
ability,  must  be  false. 

4.  The  Pelagian  system  leaves  the  universal  sinfulness  of  men,  a 
fact  which  cannot  be  denied,  altogether  unaccounted  for.  To  refer 
it  to  the  mere  free  agency  of  man  is  to  say  that  a  thing  always  is, 
simply  because  it  may  be. 

5.  This  system  fails  to  satisfy  the  deepest  and  most  universal 
necessities  of  our  nature.     In  making  man  independent  of  God  by 


§  5.]  AUGUSTINIAN  DOCTRINE.  157 

assuming  that  God  cannot  control  free  agents  witliout  destroying 
their  liberty,  it  makes  all  prayer  for  the  controlling  grace  of 
God  over  ourselves  and  others  a  mockery,  and  throws  man  back 
completely  on  his  own  resources  to  grapple  with  sin  and  the  powers 
of  darkness  without  hope  of  deliverance. 

6.  It  makes  redemption  (in  the  sense  of  a  deliverance  from  sin) 
unnecessary  or  impossible.  It  is  unnecessary  that  there  should  be 
a  redeemer  for  a  race  which  has  not  fallen,  and  which  has  full 
ability  to  avoid  all  sin  or  to  recover  itself  from  its  power.  And  it 
is  impossible,  if  free  agents  are  independent  of  the  control  of  God. 

7.  It  need  hardly  be  said  that  a  system  which  asserts,  that  Adam's 
sin  injured  only  himself;  that  men  are  born  into  the  world  in  the 
state  in  which  Adam  was  created  ;  that  men  may,  and  often  do, 
live  without  sin  ;  that  we  have  no  need  of  divine  assistance  in 
order  to  be  holy ;  and  that  Christianity  has  no  essential  superiority 
over  heathenism  or  natural  religion,  is  altogether  at  variance  with 
the  word  of  God.  The  opposition  indeed  between  Pelagianism  and 
the  gospel  is  so  open  and  so  radical  that  the  former  has  never  been 
regarded  as  a  form  of  Christianity  at  all.  It  has,  in  other  words, 
never  been  the  faith  of  any  organized  Christian  church.  It  is  little 
more  than  a  form  of  Rationalism. 

§  5.  Augustinian  Doctrine. 

The  Philosophical  Element  of  Augustine'' s  Doctrine. 

There  are  two  elements  in  Augustine's  doctrine  of  sin  :  the  one 
metaphysical  or  philosophical,  the  other  moral  or  religious.  The 
one  a  speculation  of  the  understanding,  the  other  derived  from  his 
religious  experience  and  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  one 
has  passed  away,  leaving  little  more  trace  on  the  history  of  doctrine 
than  other  speculations,  whether  Aristotelian  or  Platonic.  The 
other  remains,  and  has  given  form  to  Christian  doctrine  fi'om  that 
day  to  this.  This  is  not  to  be  wondered  at.  Nothing  is  more 
uncertain  and  unsatisfactory  than  the  speculations  of  the  under- 
standing or  philosophical  theories.  Whereas  nothing  is  more  certain 
and  universal  than  the  moral  consciousness  of  men  and  the  truths 
which  it  reveals.  And  as  the  Scriptures,  being  the  work  of  God, 
do  and  must  conform  their  teachings  to  what  God  teaches  in  the 
constitution  of  our  nature,  doctrines  founded  on  the  twofold  teachino; 
of  the  Spirit,  in  his  word  and  in  the  hearts  of  his  people,  remain 
unchanged  from  generation  to  generation,  while  the  speculations  of 
philosophy  or  of  philosophical  theologians  pass  away  as  the  leaves 


158  PART  II.     Ch.   VIII.  — sin, 

of  the  forest.  No  man  now  concerns  liimself  about  the  philosopliy 
of  Origen,  or  of  the  new  Platonists,  or  of  Augustine,  while  tlie 
language  of  David  in  the  fifty-first  Psalm  is  used  to  express  the 
experience  and  convictions  of  all  the  people  of  God  in  all  ages  and 
in  all  parts  of  the  world. 

Tlie  metaphysical  element  in  Augustine's  doctrine  of  sin  arose 
from  his  controversy  with  the  Manicheans.  Manes  taught  that 
sin  was  a  substance.  This  Augustine  denied.  With  him  it  was  a 
maxim  that  "  Omne  esse  bonum  est."  But  \?  esse  (being)  is  good, 
and  if  evil  is  the  opposite  of  good,  then  evil  must  be  the  opposite 
of  being,  or  nothing,  i.  e.,  the  negation  or  privation  of  being.  Thus 
he  was  led  to  adopt  the  language  of  the  new  Platonists  and  of 
Origen,  who,  by  a  different  process,  were  brought  to  define  evil  as 
the  negation  of  being,  as  Plotinus  calls  it,  o-rcpT/o-ts  rov  ovto<;  ;  and 
Origen  says,  irao-a  rj  kukm  ouSeV  ia-TLv,  and  evil  itself  he  says  is  ia-rep^a-- 
Oai  Tov  wTos.  In  thus  making  being  good  and  the  negation  of  being 
evil,  Augustine  seems  to  have  made  the  same  mistake  which 
other  philosophers  have  so  often  made,  —  of  confounding  physical 
and  moral  good.  When  God  at  the  beginning  declared  all  things, 
material  and  immaterial,  which  He  had  made,  to  be  very  good.  He 
simply  declared  them  to  be  suited  to  the  ends  for  which  they  were 
severally  made.  He  did  not  intend  to  teach  us  that  moral  goodness 
could  be  predicated  of  matter  or  of  an  irrational  animal.  In  other 
cases  the  word  good  means  agreeable,  or  adapted  to  give  pleasure. 
In  others  again,  it  means  morally  right.  To  infer  from  the  fact  that 
everything  which  God  made  is  good,  or  that  every  esse  is  bonum, 
that  therefore  moral  evil  beino;  the  negation  of  sjood  must  be  the 
negation  of  being,  is  as  illogical  as  to  argue  that  because  honey  is 
good  (in  the  sense  of  being  agreeable  to  the  taste)  therefore  worm- 
wood is  bad,  in  the  sense  of  being  sinful.  Although  Augustine 
held  the  language  of  those  philosophers  who,  both  before  and  since, 
destroy  the  very  nature  of  sin  in  making  it  mere  limitation  of  being, 
yet  he  was  very  far  from  holding  the  same  system.  (1.)  They 
made  sin  necessary,  as  arising  from  the  very  nature. of  a  creature. 
He  made  it  voluntary.  (2.)  They  made  it  purely  physical.  He 
made  it  moral.  With  him  it  includes  pollution  and  guilt.  With 
them  it  included  neither.  (3.)  With  Augustine  this  negation  was 
not  merely  passive,  it  was  not  the  simple  want  of  being,  it  was  such 
privation  as  tended  to  destruction.  (4.)  Evil  with  Augustine, 
therefore,  as  was  more  fully  and  clearly  taught  by  his  followers, 
was  not  mere  privation,  nor  simply  defect.  That  a  stone  cannot 
see,  involves  the  negation  of  the  power  of  vision.     But  it  is  not! 


§  5.]  AUGUSTINIAN  DOCTRINE.  159 

a  defect,  because  the  power  of  vision  does  not  belong  to  stones. 
Blindness  is  a  defect  in  an  animal,  but  not  sin.  Tiie  absence  of 
love  to  God  in  a  rational  creature  is  sin,  because  it  is  the  absence 
of  something  which  belongs  to  such  a  creature,  and  which  he  ought 
to  have.  In  the  true  Augustinian  sense,  therefore,  sin  is  negation 
only  as  it  is  the  privation  of  moral  good,  —  the  privatio  boni,  or  as 
it  was  afterwards  generally  expressed,  a  want  of  conformity  to  the 
law  or  standard  of  good. 

Augustine^ s  Reasons  for  making  Sin  a  Negation. 

In  thus  making  sin  negation,  Augustine  had  principally  two 
ends  in  view.  (1.)  To  show  that  sin  is  not  necessary.  If  it  were 
something  existing  of  itself,  or  something  created  by  the  power  of 
God,  it  was  beyond  the  power  of  man.  He  was  its  victim,  not  its 
author.  (2.)  He  desired  to  show  that  it  was  not  due  to  the  divine 
efficiency.  According  to  his  theory  of  God's  relation  to  the  world, 
not  only  all  that  is,  every  substance,  is  created  and  upheld  by  God, 
but  all  activity  or  power,  all  energy  by  which  positive  effects  are 
produced,  is  the  energy  of  God.  If  sin,  therefore,  was  anything  in 
itself,  anything  more  than  a  defect,  or  a  want  of  conformity  to  a 
rule,  God  must  be  its  author.  He,  therefore,  took  such  a  view  of 
the  psychological  nature  of  sin,  that  it  did  not  require  an  efficient., 
but  as  he  often  said  only  a  deficient  cause.  If  a  man,  to  use  the 
old  Augustinian  illustration,  strike  the  cords  of  an  untuned  harp, 
he  is  the  cause  of  the  sound  but  not  of  the  discord.  So  God  is  the 
cause  of  the  sinner's  activity  but  not  of  the  discordance  between 
his  acts  and  the  laws  of  eternal  truth  and  right.^ 

The  Moral  Element  of  His  Doctrine. 

The  true  Augustinian  doctrine  of  sin  was  that  which  the  illus- 
trious father  drew  from  his  own  religious  experience,  as  guided  and 
determined  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  He  was,  (1.)  Conscious  of  sin. 
He  recognized  himself  as  guilty  and  polluted,  as  amenable  to  the 
justice  of  God  and  offensive  to  his  holiness.  (2.)  He  felt  himself 
to  be  thus  guilty  and  polluted  not  only  because  of  deliberate  acts 
of  transgression,  but  also  for  his  affections,  feelings,  and  emotions. 
This  sense  of  sin  attached  not  only  to  these  positive  and  consciously 
active  states  of  mind,  but  also  to  the  mere  absence  of  right  affections, 
to  hardness  of  heart,  to  the  want  of  love,  humility,  faith,  and  other 
Christian  virtues,  or  to  their  feebleness  and  inconstancy.      (3.)  He 

1  See,  on  Augustine's  theorv,  Miiller,  Lehre  von  der  Sunde,  vol.  i.  pp.  338-349.  Ritter's 
Geschichte  der  CkrislKchen  Philosophie,  vol  ii.  pp.  337-425. 


160  PART  II.     Ch.   VIII.  — sin. 

recognized  the  fact  that  he  had  always  been  a  sinner.  As  far  back 
as  consciousness  extended  it  was  the  consciousness  of  sin.  (4.)  He 
was  deeply  convinced  that  he  had  no  power  to  change  his 
moral  nature  or  to  make  himself  holy  ;  that  whatever  liberty  he 
possessed,  however  free  he  was  in  sinning,  or  (after  regeneration) 
in  holy  acting,  he  had  not  the  liberty  of  ability  which  Pelagians 
claimed  as  an  essential  prerogative  of  humanity.  (5.)  It  was 
involved  in  this  consciousness  of  sin  as  including  guilt  or  just 
liability  to  punishment,  as  well  as  pollutioti,  that  it  could  not  be  a 
necessary  evil,  but  must  have  its  origin  in  the  free  act  of  man,  and 
be  therefore  voluntary.  Voluntary:  (a.)  In  having  its  origin  in 
an  act  of  the  will ;  (6.)  In  having  its  seat  in  the  will  ;  (c.)  In 
consisting  in  the  determination  of  the  will  to  evil :  the  word  will 
being  here,  as  by  Augustine  generally,  taken  in  its  widest  sense  for 
everything  in  man  that  does  not  fall  under  the  category  of  the 
understanding.  (6.)  What  consciousness  taught  him  to  be  true 
with  reo-ard  to  himself  he  saw  to  be  true  in  regard  to  others.  All 
men  showed  themselves  to  be  sinners.  They  all  gave  evidence  of 
sinfulness  as  soon  as  they  gave  evidence  of  reason.  They  all 
appeared  not  only  as  transgressors  of  the  law  of  God,  but  as  spiritu- 
ally dead,  devoid  of  all  evidence  of  spiritual  life.  They  were  the 
willing  slaves  of  sin,  entirely  unable  to  deliver  themselves  from 
their  bondage  to  corruption.  No  man  had  ever  given  proof  of 
possessing  the  power  of  self  regeneration.  All  who  gave  evidence 
of  being  regenerated,  with  one  voice  ascribed  the  work  not  to 
themselves,  but  to  the  grace  of  God.  From  these  facts  of  con- 
sciousness and  experience  Augustine  drew  the  inevitable  conclu- 
sion, (1.)  That  if  men  are  saved  it  cannot  be  by  their  own  merit, 
but  solely  through  the  undeserved  love  of  God.  (2.)  That  the 
regeneration  of  the  soul  must  be  the  exclusive  and  supernatural 
work  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  that  the  sinner  could  neither  effect  the 
work  nor  cooperate  in  its  production.  In  other  words,  that  grace 
is  certainly  efficacious  or  irresistible.  (3.)  That  salvation  is  of 
grace  or  of  the  sovereign  mercy  of  God,  (a.)  In  that  God  might 
justly  have  left  men  to  perish  in  their  apostasy  without  any  pro- 
vision for  their  redemption.  (5.)  In  that  men,  being  destitute  of 
the  power  of  doing  anything  holy  or  meritorious,  their  justification 
cannot  be  by  works,  but  must  be  a  matter  of  favour,  (c.)  In  that  it 
depends  not  on  the  will  of  the  persons  saved,  but  on  the  good  pleas- 
ure of  God,  who  are  to  be  made  partakers  of  the  redemption  of 
Christ.  In  other  words,  election  to  eternal  life  must  be  founded 
on  the  sovereign  pleasure  of  God,  and  not  on  the  foresight  of  good 


§5.]  AUGUSTINIAN  DOCTRINE.  161 

works.  (4.)  A  fourth  inference  from  the  principles  of  Aiigustine 
was  the  perseverance  of  the  saints.  If  God  of  his  own  good  pleasure 
elects  some  to  eternal  life,  they  cannot  fail  of  salvation.  It  thus 
appears  that  as  all  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  Pelagians  are 
the  logical  consequences  of  their  principle  of  plenary  ability  as  the 
ground  and  limit  of  obligation,  so  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of 
Augustine  are  the  logical  consequences  of  his  principle  of  the  entire 
inability  of  fallen  man  to  do  anything  spiritually  good. 

Taught  by  his  own  experience  that  he  was  from  his  birtli  guilty 
and  polluted,  and  that  he  had  no  power  to  change  his  own  nature, 
and  seeing  that  all  men  are  involved  in  the  same  sinfulness  and 
helplessness,  he  accepted  the  Scriptural  solution  of  these  facts  of 
consciousness  and  observation,  and  therefore  held,  (1.)  That  God 
created  man  originally  in  his  own  image  and  likeness  in  knowl- 
edge, righteousness,  and  holiness,  immortal,  and  invested  with  do- 
minion over  the  creatures.  He  held  also  that  Adam  was  endowed 
with  perfect  liberty  of  the  will,  not  only  with  spontaneity  and  the 
power  of  self-determination,  but  with  the  power  of  choosing  good 
or  evil,  and  thus  of  determining  his  own  character.  (2.)  That  be- 
ing left  to  the  freedom  of  his  own  will,  Adam,  under  the  tempta- 
tion of  the  Devil,  voluntarily  sinned  against  God,  and  thus  fell 
from  the  estate  in  which  he  was  created.  (3.)  That  the  conse- 
quences of  this  sin  upon  Adam  were  the  loss  of  the  divine  image, 
and  the  corruption  of  his  whole  nature,  so  that  he  became  spirit- 
ually dead,  and  thus  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all 
spiritual  good.  Besides  this  spiritual  death,  he  became  mortal,  lia- 
ble to  all  the  miseries  of  this  life,  and  to  eternal  death.  (4.)  Such 
was  the  union  between  Adam  and  his  descendants,  that  the  same 
consequences  of  his  transgression  came  on  them  that  fell  upon  him. 
They  are  born  the  children  of  wrath,  i.  e.,  in  a  state  of  condem- 
nation, destitute  of  the  image  of  God,  and  morally  depraved. 
(5.)  This  inherent,  hereditary  depravity  is  truly  and  properly  of 
the  nature  of  sin,  involving  both  guilt  and  corruption.  In  its  formal 
nature  it  consists  in  the  privation  of  original  rigliteousness  and  (con- 
cupiscence) inordinatio  natures^  disorder  of  the  whole  nature.  It  is 
of  the  nature  of  a  habitus  as  distinguished  from  an  act,  activity  or 
agency.  It  is  voluntary,  in  the  sense  mentioned  above,  especially 
in  that  it  did  not  arise  from  necessity  of  nature,  or  from  the  effi- 
ciency of  God,  but  from  the  free  agency  of  Adam.  (6.)  That  the 
loss  of  original  righteousness  and  the  corruption  of  nature  conse- 
quent on  the  fall  of  Adam  are  penal  inflictions,  being  the  punish- 
ment of  his  first  sin.     (7.)   That  regeneration,  or  effectual  calling, 

VOL.    II.  11 


162  PART  n.   Ch.  viii.  — sin. 

is  a  supernatural  act  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  which  the  soul  is  tlie 
subject  and  not  the  agent ;  that  it  is  sovereign,  granted  or  with- 
held according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  God  ;  and  consequently  that 
salvation  is  entirely  of  grace. 

This  is  the  Augustinian  system  in  all  that  is  essential.  It  is 
this  which  has  remained,  and  been  the  abiding  form  of  doctrine 
among  the  great  body  of  evangelical  Christians  from  that  day  to 
this.  It  is  of  course  admitted  that  Augustine  held  much  connected 
with  the  several  points  above  mentioned,  which  was  peculiar  to  the 
man  or  to  the  age  in  which  he  lived,  but  which  does  not  belong  to 
Augustinianism  as  a  system  of  doctrine.  As  Lutheranism  does 
not  include  all  the  individual  opinions  of  Luther,  and  as  Calvinism 
does  not  include  all  the  personal  views  of  Calvin,  so  there  is  much 
taught  by  Augustine  which  does  not  belong  to  Augustinianism.  He 
taught  that  all  sin  is  the  negation  of  being  ;  that  liberty  is  ability, 
so  that  in  denying  to  fallen  man  ability  to  change  his  own  heart, 
he  denies  to  him  freedom  of  the  will ;  that  concupiscence  (in  the 
lower  sense  of  the  word),  as  an  instinctive  feeling,  is  sinful ;  that 
a  sinful  nature  is  propagated  by  the  very  law  of  generation  ;  that 
baptism  removes  the  guilt  of  original  sin  ;  and  that  all  unbaptized 
infants  (as  Romanists  still  teach  and  almost  all  Protestants  deny) 
are  lost.  These,  and  other  similar  points  are  not  integral  parts  of 
his  system,  and  did  not  receive  the  sanction  of  the  Church  when 
it  pronounced  in  favour  of  his  doctrine  as  opposed  to  that  of  the 
Pelagians.  In  like  manner  it  is  a  matter  of  minor  importance  how 
he  understood  the  nature  of  the  union  between  Adam  and  his  pos- 
terity ;  whether  he  held  the  representative,  or  the  realistic  theory  ; 
or  whether  he  ultimately  sided  for  Traducianism  as  against  Crea- 
tionism,  or  for  the  latter  as  against  the  former.  On  these  points  his 
language  is  confused  and  undecided.  It  is  enough  that  he  held  that 
such  was  the  union  between  Adam  and  his  race,  that  the  whole 
human  family  stood  their  probation  in  him  and  fell  with  him  in  his 
first  transgression,  so  that  all  the  evils  which  are  the  consequences 
of  that  transgression,  including  physical  and  spiritual  death,  are 
the  punishment  of  that  sin.  On  this  point  he  is  perfectly  explicit. 
When  it  was  objected  by  Julian  that  sin  cannot  be  the  punishment 
of  sin,  he  replied  that  we  must  distinguish  three  things,  that  we 
must  know,  "aliud  esse  peccatum,  aliud  poenam  peccati,aliud  utrum- 
que,  id  est,  ita  peccatum,  ut  ipsum  sit  etiam  pcena  peccati,  .... 
pertinet  originale  peccatum  ad  hoc  genus  tertiuni,  ubi  sic  peccatum 
est,  ut  ipsum  sit  et  poena  peccati."^    Again  he  says  :  "  Est  [pecca- 

1  Optu   Jmpeffectum,  i.  47 ;    Woi-ks,  edit.  Benedictines,  vol.  x.  pp.  1495,  d,  and  1496,  d. 


§  5.J  AUGUSTINIAN  DOCTRINE.  163 

turn]  ....  non  solum  voluntarium  atque  possibile  iinde  libe- 
rum  est  abstinere  ;  verum  etiam  necessarium  peccatum,  undo  absti- 
nere  Hberum  non  est,  quod  jam  non  solum  peccatum,  sed  etiam  poena 
peccati  est."  ^  Spiritual  death  (i.  e.,  original  sin  or  inherent  corrup- 
tion), says  Wiggers,  is,  according  to  Augustine,  the  special  and  prin- 
cipal penalty  of  Adam's  first  transgression,  which  penalty  has  passed 
on  all  men.^  This  is  in  exact  accordance  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Apostle,  who  says :  "  In  Adam  all  die,"  1  Cor.  xv.  22  ;  and  that 
a  sentence  of  condemnation  (^Kplfjia  cis  KaraKpifia)  for  one  offence 
passed  on  all  men,  Rom.  v.  16,  17.  This  Augustine  clung  to  as 
a  Scriptural  doctrine,  and  as  a  historical  fact.  This,  however,  is  a 
doctrine  which  men  have  ever  found  it  hard  to  believe,  and  a  f;ict 
which  they  have  ever  been  slow  to  admit.  Pelagius  said  :  ^  "  Nulla 
ratione  concedi  ut  Deus,  qui  propria  peccata  remittit,  imputet 
aliena."  And  Julian  vehemently  exclaims,  "  Amolire  te  itaque 
cum  tali  Deo  tuo  de  Ecclesiarum  medio :  non  est  ipse,  cui 
Patriarchae,  cui  Prophets,  cui  Apostoli  crediderunt,  in  quo  spera- 
vit  et  sperat  Ecclesia  primitivorum,  qua  conscripta  est  in  coelis  : 
non  est  ipse  quern  credit  jndicem  rationabilis  creatura ;  quem 
Spiritus  sanctus  juste  judicaturum  esse  denuntiat.  Nemo  pruden- 
tium,  pro  tali  Domino  suum  unquam  sanguinem  fudisset :  nee 
enim  merebatur  dilectionis  affectum,  ut  suscipiendse  pro  se  onus 
imponeret  passionis.  Postremo  iste  quem  inducis,  si  esset  uspiam, 
reus  convinceretur  esse  non  Deus ;  judicandus  a  vero  Deo  meo, 
non  judicaturus  pro  Deo."  *  To  this  great  objection  Augustine 
gives  different  answers.  (1.)  He  refers  to  Scriptural  examples 
in  which  men  have  been  punished  for  the  sins  of  others.  (2.)  He 
appeals  to  the  fact  that  God  visits  the  sins  of  parents  upon  their 
children.  (3.)  Sometimes  he  says  we  should  rest  satisfied  with  the 
assurance  that  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  must  do  right,  whether  we 
can  see  the  justice  of  his  ways  or  not.  (4.)  At  others  he  seems  to 
adopt  the  realistic  doctrine  that  all  men  were  in  Adam,  and  that  his 
sin  was  their  sin,  being  the  act  of  generic  humanity.  As  Levi  was 
in  the  loins  of  Abraham,  and  was  tithed  in  him,  so  we  were  in  the 
loins  of  Adam,  and  sinned  in  him.  (5.)  And,  finally,  he  urges 
that  as  we  are  justified  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  it  is  not 
incongruous  that  we  should  be  condemned  for  the  sin  of  Adam.^ 
It  will  be  observed  that  some  of  these  grounds  are  inconsistent  with 

1  Opus  rmperfechim,  v.  59;    Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  vol.  x.,  p.  2026,  b. 

2  Angustinismus  und  Pelagianismus,  edit.  Hamburg,  1833,  vol.  i.  p.  104. 

8  A/JU(1  Aiti/nntinum  de  I'tccdOiruin  Mtnitu  tl  lieiiUiAuiin:,  III.  ill.  5;    Works,  vol.  x.  p.  289,  a. 
*  Opus  Imperfeclum  contra  ./aliniium,  l.  50;    iVorks,  vol.  x.  p.  1501,  a,  b. 
5  See  Miinscher's  Dogmengeschichte,  vol.  iv.  p.  195. 


164  PART  n.   Ch.  vni.— sm. 

others.  If  one  be  valid,  the  others  are  invalid.  If  we  reconcile 
the  condemnation  of  men  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  on  the 
ground  that  he  was  our  representative,  or  that  he  sustained  the 
relation  which  all  parents  bear  to  their  children,  we  renounce 
the  ground  of  a  realistic  union.  If  the  latter  theory  be  true,  then 
Adam's  sin  was  our  act  as  truly  as  it  was  his.  If  we  adopt  the 
representative  theory,  his  act  was  not  our  act  in  any  other  sense 
than  that  in  which  a  representative  acts  for  his  constituents. 
From  this  it  is  plain,  (1.)  That  Augustine  had  no  clear  and  settled 
conviction  as  to  the  nature  of  the  union  between  Adam  and  his 
race  which  is  the  ground  of  the  imputation  of  his  sin  to  his  posterity, 
any  more  than  he  had  about  the  origin  of  the  soul  ;  and  (2.)  That 
no  particular  theory'  on  that  point,  whether  the  representative  or 
realistic,  can  properly  be  made  an  element  of  Augustinianism,  as  a 
historical  and  church  form  of  doctrine. 

§  6.  Doctrine  of  the  OhurcJi  of  Rome. 

This  is  a  point  very  difficult  to  decide.  Romanists  themselves 
are  as  much  at  variance  as  to  what  their  Church  teaches  concern- 
ing original  sin  as  those  who  do  not  belong  to  their  communion. 
The  sources  of  this  difficulty  are,  (1.)  First,  the  great  diversity  of 
opinions  on  this  subject  prevailing  in  the  Latin  Church  before  the 
authoritative  decisions  of  the  Council  of  Trent  and  of  the  Romish 
Catechism.  (2.)  The  ambiguity  and  want  of  precision  or  fulness 
in  the  decisions  of  that  council.  (3.)  The  different  interpretations 
given  by  prominent  theologians  of  the  true  meaning  of  the  Triden- 
tine  canons. 

Diversity  of  Sentiment  in  the  Latin  Church. 

As  to  the  first  of  these  points  it  may  be  remarked  that  there 
were  mainly  three  conflicting  elements  in  the  Latin  Church 
before  the  Reformation,  in  relation  to  the  whole  subject  of  sin. 
(1.)  The  doctrine  of  Augustine.  (2.)  That  of  the  Semi-Pela- 
gians, and  (3.)  That  of  those  of  the  schoolmen  who  endeavoured 
to  find  a  middle  ground  between  the  other  two  systems.  The 
doctrine  of  Augustine,  as  exhibited  above,  was  sanctioned  by 
the  Latin  Church,  and  pronounced  to  be  the  true  orthodox 
faith.  But  even  during  the  lifetime  of  Augustine,  and  to  a 
greater  extent  in  the  following  century,  serious  departures  from 
his  system  began  to  prevail.  These  departures  related  to  all  the 
intimately  connected  doctrines  of  sin,  grace,  and  predestination. 
Pelagianism  was  universally  disclaimed  and  condemned.     It  was 


I 


§6.]      DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.      165 

admitted  that  the  race  of  man  fell  in  Adam ;  that  his  sin  affected 
injuriously  his  posterity  as  well  as  himself;  that  men  are  born  in 
a  state  of  alienation  from  God ;  that  they  need  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  order  to  their  restoration  to  holiness.  But  what  is 
the  nature  of  original  sin,  or  of  that  depravity  or  deterioration  of 
our  nature  derived  from  Adam  ?  And,  What  are  the  remains  of 
the  divine  image  which  are  still  preserved,  or  what  is  the  power 
for  good  which  fallen  men  still  possess  ?  And  What  is  to  be 
understood  by  the  grace  of  God  and  the  extent  of  its  influence  ? 
And  What  is  the  ground  on  which  God  brings  some  and  not 
others  to  the  enjoyment  of  eternal  life  ?  These  were  questions 
which  received  very  different  answers.  Augustine,  as  we  have 
seen,  answered  the  first  of  these  questions  by  saying  that  original 
sin  consists  not  only  in  the  loss  of  original  righteousness,  but  also 
in  concupiscence,  or  disorder,  or  corruption  of  nature,  which  is  truly 
and  properly  sin,  including  both  guilt  and  pollution.  The  second 
question  he  answered  by  saying  that  fallen  man  has  no  power  to 
effect  what  is  spiritually  good  ;  he  can  neither  regenerate  himself, 
prepare  himself  for  regeneration,  nor  cooperate  with  the  grace  of 
God  in  that  work.  These  principles  necessarily  lead  to  the  doctrines 
of  efficacious  or  irresistible  grace  and  of  sovereign  election,  as  was 
seen  and  universally  admitted.  It  was  these  necessary  consequences, 
rather  than  the  principles  themselves,  which  awakened  opposition. 
But  to  get  rid  of  the  consequences  it  was  necessary  that  the  prin- 
ciples should  be  refuted.  This  opposition  to  Augustinianism  arose 
with  the  monks  and  prevailed  principally  among  them.  This,  as 
Gieseler^  says,  was  very  natural.  Augustine  taught  that  man 
could  do  nothing  good  of  himself,  and  could  acquire  no  merit  in 
the  sight  of  God.  The  monks  believed  that  they  could  do  not  only 
all,  but  more  than  all  that  God  required  of  them.  Else  why  submit 
to  their  vows  of  celibacy,  poverty,  and  obedience  ?  The  party 
thus  formed  against  the  orthodox  or  established  doctrine  was  called 
Semi-Pelagian,  because  it  held  a  middle  ground  between  Pelagius 
and  Augustine. 

The  Semi- Pelagians. 

The  principal  leaders  of  this  party  were  John  Cassianus,  an 
Eastern  monk  and  disciple  of  Chrysostom ;  Vincentius  Lerinensis, 
and  Faustus  of  Rhegium.  The  most  important  work  of  Cassian 
was  entitled  "  Collationes  Patrum,"  which  is  a  collection  of 
dialogues  on  various  subjects.  He  was  a  devout  rather  than  a 
speculative  writer,  relying  on  the  authority  of  Scripture  for  the 

1  Kirchenc/eschichte,  vol.  vi.  p.  350. 


166  PART  n.   Ch.  vni.  — sin. 

support  of  liis  doctrine.  Educated  in  tlie  Greek  Church  and  trained 
in  a  monastery,  all  his  prepossessions  were  adverse  to  Augustinianism. 
And  when  he  transferred  his  residence  to  Marseilles  in  the  south 
of  France,  and  found  himself  in  the  midst  of  churches  who  bowed 
to  the  authority  of  Augustine,  he  set  himself  to  modify  and  soften, 
but  not  directly  to  oppose  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of  that  father. 
Vincent  of  Lerins  was  a  man  of  a  different  spirit  and  of  higher 
po^vers.  His  reliance  was  on  tradition.  He  held  the  highest 
doctrine  concei-ning  the  Church,  and  taught  that  communion  with 
her  in  faith  and  ordinances  was  the  one  essential  condition  of  salva- 
tion. He  was  the  author  of  the  celebrated  formula  as  to  the  rule  of 
faith,  quod  ubique,  quod  semper,  quod  ah  omnibus  creditum  est.  His 
principal  work  is  entitled  "  Commonitorium,"  or  Remembrancer,  a 
collection  mainly  of  extracts.  This  work  was  long  considered  a 
standard  among  Romanists,  and  has  been  held  in  high  repute  by 
many  Protestants  for  the  ability  which  it  displays.  It  was  intended 
as  a  guard  against  heresy,  by  exhibiting  what  the  leaders  of  the 
Church  had  taught  against  heretics,  and  to  determine  the  principle 
on  which  the  authority  of  the  fathers  was  to  be  admitted.  A  single 
father,  even  though  a  bishop,  confessor,  or  martyr,  might  err,  and 
his  teachings  be  properly  disregarded,  but  when  he  concurred  with 
the  general  drift  of  ecclesiastical  teaching,  i.  e.,  with  tradition,  he 
was  to  be  fully  believed.^ 

The  ablest  and  most  influential  of  the  leaders  of  the  Semi-Pelagian 
party  was  Faustus  of  Rhegium,  who  secured  the  condemnation  of 
Lucidus,  an  extreme  advocate  of  the  Augustinian  doctrine,  in  the 
Synod  of  Aries,  475,  a.  d.  ;  and  who  was  called  upon  by  the  council 
to  write  the  work  "  De  gratia  Dei  et  humange  mentis  libero  arbitrio," 
which  attained  great  celebrity  and  authority.  The  Semi-Pelagians, 
however,  were  far  from  agreeing  among  themselves  either  as  to  sin 
or  as  to  grace.  Cassian  taught  that  the  effects  of  Adam's  sin  on  his 
posterity  were,  (1.)  That  they  became  mortal,  and  subject  to  the 
physical  infirmities  of  this  life.  (2.)  That  the  knowledge  of  nature 
and  of  the  divine  law  which  Adam  originally  possessed,  was  in  a 
great  measure  preserved  until  the  sons  of  Seth  intermarried  with 
the  daughters  of  Cain,  when  the  race  became  greatly  deteriorated. 
(3.)  That  the  moral  effects  of  the  fall  Avere  to  weaken  the  soul  in 
all  its  power  for  good,  so  that  men  constantly  need  the  assistance 
»f  divine  grace.  (4.)  What  that  grace  was,  whether  the  supernat- 
ural influence  of  the  Spirit,  the  providential  efficiency  of  God,  or 
his  various  gifts  of  faculties  and  of  knowledge,  he  nowhere  distinctly 

1  See  Wiggers'  Augustinismus  und  Pelagianismus,  vol.  ii.  chap.  9. 


§6.]       DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.       167 

explains.  He  admitted  that  men  could  not  save  themselves  ;  but 
held  that  they  were  not  spiritually  dead  ;  they  were  sick ;  and 
constantly  needed  the  aid  of  the  Great  Physician.  He  taught  that 
man  sometimes  began  the  work  of  conversion  ;  sometimes  God  ; 
and  sometimes,  in  a  certain  sense,  God  saves  the  unwilling,^ 
Vincent  evidently  regarded  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  original 
sin  as  making  God  the  author  of  evil ;  for,  he  says,  it  assumes  that 
God  has  created  a  nature,  which  acting  according  to  its  own  laws 
and  under  the  impulse  of  an  enslaved  will,  can  do  nothing  but  sin.^ 
And  he  pronounces  heretical  those  who  teach  that  gi'ace  saves  those 
who  do  not  ask,  seek,  or  knock,  in  evident  allusion  to  the  doctrine 
of  Augustine  that  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that 
runneth,  but  of  God  who  showeth  mercy.  Faustus  admitted  a 
moral  corruption  of  nature  as  the  consequence  of  the  fall  of 
Adam,  which  he  called  original  sin  (origiyiale  delictum).  In  his 
letter  to  Lucidus  he  anathematizes  the  doctrine  of  Pelagius  that 
man  is  born  "  without  sin."  ^  From  this  deteriorated,  infirm  state, 
no  man  can  deliver  himself.  He  needs  the  grace  of  God.  But 
what  that  grace  was  is  doubtful.  From  some  passages  of  his  writ- 
ing there  would  seem  to  be  meant  by  it  only,  or  principally,  the 
moral  influence  of  tlie  truth  as  revealed  by  the  Spirit  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. He  says  God  draws  men  to  him,  but  "  Quid  est  attrahere 
nisi  praedicare,  nisi  scripturarum  consolationibus  excitare,  increpa- 
tionibus  deterrere,  desideranda  proponere,  intentare  metuenda,  ju- 
dicium comminari,  prgemium  polliceri  ?  "  *  Semi-Pelagians  agreed, 
however,  in  rejecting  the  Pelagian  doctrine  that  Adam's  sin  injured 
only  himself ;  they  admitted  that  the  effects  of  that  sin  passed  on  all 
men,  affecting  both  the  soul  and  body.  It  rendered  the  body 
mortal,  and  liable  to  disease  and  suffering  ;  and  the  soul  it  weak- 
ened, so  that  it  became  prone  to  evil  and  incapable,  without  divine 
assistance,  of  doing  anything  spiritually  good.  But  as  against 
Augustine  they  held,  at  least  according  to  the  statements  of  Prosper 
and  Hilary,  the  advocates  of  Augustinianism  in  the  south  of  France, 
(1.)  That  the  beginning  of  salvation  is  with  man.  Man  begins  to 
seek  God,  and  then  God  aids  him.  (2.)  That  this  incipient  turning 
of  the  soul  towards  God  is  something  good,  and  in  one  sense  meri- 
toi'ious.  (3.)  That  the  soul,  in  virtue  of  its  liberty  of  will  or  ability 
for  good,  cooperates  with  the  grace  of  God  in  regeneration  as  well 
as  in  sanctification.  That  these  charges  were  well  founded  maj' 
be   inferred  from    the    decisions  of  the   councils  of  Orange    and 

1  See  Wiggers'  Augustinismus  und  Pelagianismus,  vol.  ii.  chap.  2. 

2  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  2U.  8  Jbid.  vol.  ii.  p.  244.  *  Ibid.  p.  266. 


168  PART  n.   Ch.  vm.  — sm. 

Valence,  a.  d.  529,  in  which  the  doctrines  of  Augustine  were  again 
sanctioned.  As  the  decisions  of  those  councils  were  ratified  by  the 
Pope  they  were,  according  to  the  papal  theory,  declared  to  be  the 
faith  of  the  Church.  Among  the  points  thus  pronounced  to  be 
included  in  the  true  Scriptural  doctrine,  are,  (1.)  That  the  conse- 
quence of  Adam's  sin  is  not  confined  to  the  body,  or  to  the  lower 
faculties  of  the  soul,  but  involves  the  loss  of  ability  to  spiritual 
good.  (2.)  The  sin  derived  from  Adam  is  spiritual  death. 
(3.)  Grace  is  granted  not  because  men  seek  it,  but  the  disposition 
to  seek  is  a  work  of  grace  and  the  gift  of  God.  (4.)  The  beginning 
of  faith  and  the  disposition  to  believe  is  not  from  the  human  will, 
but  from  the  grace  of  God.  (5.)  Believing,  willing,  desiring, 
seeking,  asking,  knocking  at  the  door  of  mercy,  are  all  to  be  referred 
to  the  work  of  the  Spirit  and  not  to  the  good  which  belongs  to  the 
nature  of  fallen  man.  The  two  great  points,  therefore,  in  dispute 
between  the  Augustinians  and  Semi-Pelagians  were  decided  in 
favour  of  the  former.  Those  points  were  (1.)  That  original  sin, 
or  the  corruption  of  nature  derived  from  Adam,  was  not  simply  a 
weakening  of  our  power  for  good,  but  was  spiritual  death  ;  really 
sin,  incapacitating  the  soul  for  any  spiritual  good.  And  (2.)  That 
in  the  work  of  conversion  it  is  not  man  that  begins,  but  the  Spirit 
of  God.  The  sinner  has  no  power  to  turn  hiuiself  unto  God,  but 
is  turned  or  renewed  by  divine  grace  before  he  can  do  anything 
spiritually  good.^ 

The  decisions  of  the  councils  of  Orange  and  Valence  in  favour 
of  Augustinianism,  did  not  arrest  the  controversy.  The  Semi- 
Pelagian  party  still  continued  numerous  and  active,  and  so  far 
gained  the  ascendency,  that  in  the  ninth  century  Gottschalk  was 
condemned  for  teaching  the  doctrine  of  predestination  in  the  sense 
of  Augustine.  From  this  period  to  the  time  of  the  lleformation 
and  the  decisions  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  great  diversity  of  opinion 
prevailed  in  the  Latin  Church  on  all  the  questions  relating  to  sin, 
grace,  and  predestination.  It  having  come  to  be  generally  admitted 
that  original  rigliteousness  was  a  supernatural  gift,  it  was  also  gen- 
erally held  that  the  effect  of  Adam's  sin  upon  himself  and  upon  his 
posterity  was  the  loss  of  that  righteousness.  This  was  its  only  sub- 
jective effect.  The  soul,  therefore,  is  left  in  the  state  In  which  it 
was  originally  created,  and  in  which  it  existed,  some  said  a  longer, 
others  a  shorter,  period,  or  no  perceptible  period  at  all,  before  the 
receipt  of  the  supernatural  endowment.  It  Is  in  this  state  that  men 
are  born  into  the  world  since  the  apostasy  of  Adam. 

1  Wiggers'  Augmtinisrmis  und  Pelagianismus,  vol.  ii.  chap.  20. 


§6.]      DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.      169 

The  Doctrine  of  Anselm. 
This  loss  of  original  righteousness  was  universally  regarded  as  a 
penal  evil.  It  was  the  punishment  of  the  first  sin  of  Adam  which 
came  equally  upon  him  and  upon  all  his  descendants.  The  ques- 
tion now  is,  Wliat  is  the  moral  state  of  a  soul  destitute  of  original 
righteousness  considered  as  a  supernatural  gift  ?  It  was  the  differ- 
ent views  taken  as  to  the  answer  to  that  question,  M-hich  gave  rise 
to  the  conflicting  views  of  the  nature  and  consequences  of  original 
sin. 

1.  Some  said  that  this  negative  state  was  itself  sinful.  Ad- 
mitting that  original  sin  is  simply  the  loss  of  original  righteous- 
ness, it  was  nevertheless  truly  and  properly  sin.  This  was  the 
ground  taken  by  Anselm,  the  father  of  the  scholastic  philosophy 
and  theoloojv.  In  his  work,  "  De  Conceptu  Virginali  et  Originali 
peccato,"  he  says  of  children, ^  "  Quod  in  illis  non  est  justitia,  quam 
debent  habere,  non  hoc  fecit  illorum,  voluntas  personalis,  sicut  in 
Adam,  sed  egestas  naturalis,  quam  ipsa  natura  accepit  ab  Adam  — 
facit  natura  personas  infantium  peccatrices.  Nullam  infxntibus 
injustitiam  super  praedictam  nuditatem  justitiae.^  Peccatum  origi- 
nale  aliud  intelligere  nequeo,  nisi  ipsam — factam  per  inobedientiam 
Adge  justitise  debit®  nuditatem."^  This  original  sin,  however, 
even  in  infants,  although  purely  negative,  is  nevertheless  truly  and 
properly  sin.*  Anselm  says,  "  Omne  peccatum  est  injustitia,  et 
originale  peccatum  est  absolute  peccatum,  unde  sequitur  quod  est 
injustitia.  Item  si  Deus  non  damnat  nisi  propter  injustitiam  ;  dam- 
nat  autem  aliquem  propter  originale  peccatum,  ergo  non  est  aliud 
originale  peccatum  quam  injustitia.  Quod  si  ita  est,  originale 
peccatum  non  est  aliud  quam  injustitia,  i.  e.,  absentia  debitae  justi- 
ti»."5 

Doctrine  of  Ahelard. 

2.  The  ground  taken  by  others  of  the  schoolmen  was  that  the 
loss  of  original  righteousness  left  Adam  precisely  in  the  state  in 
which  he  was  created,  and  therefore  in  puris  naturalihus  (i.  e.,  in 
the  simple  essential  attributes  of  his  nature).  And  as  his  descend- 
ants share  his  fate,  they  are  born  in  the  same  state.  There  is  no 
inherent  hereditary  corruption,  no  moral  character  either  good  or 
bad.  The  want  of  a  supernatural  gift  not  belonging  to  the  nature 
of  man,  and  which  must  be  bestowed  as  a  favour,  cannot  be  ac- 

1  C.  23.  2  c.  27. 

8  C.  27;  see  Kollner's  Symholik  der  heiligen  apostolischen  katholischen  rSmiscken  Kirche, 
vol.  ii.  §  81,  p.  9M.  *  C.  3,  De  Originale  Peccato, 

5  Ilagenbach,  Dogmengeschichtc,  vol.  ii.  p.  139. 


170  PART  n.   ch.  vm.  — sin. 

counted  to  men  as  sin.  Original  sin,  therefore,  in  the  posterity  of 
Adam  can  consist  in  nothing  but  the  imputation  to  them  of  his  first 
transgression.  They  suffer  the  punishment  of  that  sin,  wliich  pun- 
ishment is  the  loss  of  original  rio;hteousness.  Accordino-  to  this 
view,  original  sin  is  poena  but  not  culpa.  It  is  true  that  the  inev- 
itable consequence  of  this  privation  of  righteousness  is  tliat  the 
lower  powers  of  man's  nature  gain  the  ascendency  over  the  higher, 
and  that  he  grows  up  in  sin.  Nevertheless  there  is  no  inlierent  or 
subjective  sin  in  the  new-born  infant.  There  is  a  natural  prone- 
ness  to  sin  arisinor  out  of  the  original  and  normal  constitution  of  our 
nature,  and  the  absence  of  original  righteousness  which  was  a  fre- 
num,  or  check  by  which  the  lower  powers  were  to  be  kept  in  sub- 
jection. But  this  being  the  condition  in  which  Adam  came  from 
the  hands  of  his  Creator,  it  cannot  be  in  itself  sinful.  Sin  consists 
in  assent  and  purpose.  And,  therefore,  until  the  soul  assents  to 
this  dominion  of  its  lower  nature  and  deliberately  acts  in  accord- 
ance with  it,  it  cannot  be  chargeable  with  any  personal,  inherent 
sin.  There  is  therefore  no  sin  of  nature,  as  distinguished  from 
actual  sin.  It  is  true,  as  the  advocates  of  this  theory  taught,  in 
obedience  to  the  universal  faith  of  the  Church  and  the  clear  doc- 
trine of  the  Bible,  that  men  are  born  in  sin.  But  this  is  the  guilt 
of  Adam's  first  sin,  and  not  tlieir  own  inherent  corruption.  They 
admitted  the  correctness  of  the  Latin  version  of  Romans  x.  12, 
which  makes  the  Apostle  say  that  all  men  sinned  in  Adam  (m  quo 
omnes  peccaverunt).  But  they  understood  that  passage  to  teach 
nothing  more  than  the  imputation  of  Adam's  first  sin,  and  not  any 
hereditary  inherent  corruption  of  nature.  This  was  the  theory  of 
original  sin  adopted  by  Abelard,  who  hehl  that  nothing  was  prop- 
erly of  the  nature  of  sin  but  an  act  performed  witli  an  evil  inten- 
tion. As  there  can  be  no  such  intention  in  infants  there  can  be, 
properly  speaking,  no  sin  in  them.  There  is  a  proneness  to 
sin  which  he  calls  vitium  ;  but  sin  consists  in  consent  to  tliis  incli- 
nation, and  not  in  the  inclination  itself  "  Vitium  itaque  est,  quo 
ad  peccandum  proni  efficimur,  hoc  est  inclinamur  ad  consentiendum 
ei,  quod  non  convenit,  ut  illud  scilicet  faciamus  aut  dimittamus. 
Hunc  vero  consensum  proprie  peccatum  nominamus,  hoc  est  cul- 
pam  animie,  qua  damnationem  meretur."^  He  admitted  original 
sin  as  a  punishment,  or  as  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  but  this  was 
sxternal  and  not  inherent.^     This  view  of  the  subject  was  strenu- 

1  Ethica  seu  liber  dicttis  scito  se  ipsum,  2,  3. 

2  In  Ep.  ad  Rom.  ii.  p.  592.     See  Hitler's  Geschichte  der  Christlkhen  Philosopkie,  vol.  iii. 
pp.  427-429. 


i 


§  6.]       DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.       171 

ouslv  maintained  by  some  of  the  theologians  of  the  Roman  Church 
at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  especially  by  Catharinus  and 
Pighius.  The  latter,  according  to  Cliemnitz,^  thus  states  his  doc- 
trine :  "  Quod  nee  carentia  justitise  originalis,  nee  concupiscentia 
habeat  raticnem  peccati,  sive  in  parvulis,  sive  adultis,  sive  ante, 
sive  post  baptismum.  Has  enim  afFectiones  non  esse  vitia,  sed 
naturiB  conditiones  in  nobis.  Peccatum  igitur  originis  non  esse 
defectum,  non  vitium  aliquod  non  depravationem  aliquam,  non  habi- 
tum  corruptum,  non  qualitatem  vitiosam  haerentem  in  nostra  sub- 
stantia, ut  quae  sit  sine  omni  vitio  et  depravatione,  sed  hoc  tantum 
esse  peccatum  originis,  quod  actualis  transgressio  Adae  reatu,  tan- 
tum et  poena  transmissa  et  propagata  sit  ad  posteros  sine  vitio  aliquo 
et  pravitate  haerente  in  ipsorum  substantia :  et  reatum  hunc  esse, 
quod  propter  Adge  peccatum  extorres  facti  sumus  regni  coelorum, 
subject!  regno  mortis  et  seternae  damnationi,  et  omnibus  humante 
naturae  miseriis  involuti.  Sicut  ex  servis,  qui  proprio  vitio  liberta- 
tem  amiserunt,  nascuntur  servi :  non  suo,  sed  parentum  vitio.  Et 
sicut  filius  scorti,  sustinet  infamiam  matris,  sine  proprio  aliquo  in  se 
haerente  vitio.'"'^ 

Doctrine  of  Thomas  Aquinas. 

3.  The  third  form  of  doctrine  which  prevailed  during  this  period 
was  that  proposed  by  Thomas  Aquinas  (a.  d.  1224-74)  a  Domin- 
ican monk,  the  Doctor  Angelicus  of  the  schoolmen,  and  by  far 
the  most  influential  theologian  in  the  Latin  Church  since  the  days 
of  Augustine.  His  "  Summa  Theologiae  "  wa^long  regarded  as  a 
standard  work  among  Romanists,  and  is  still  referred  to  as  an 
authority  both  by  Romanists  and  Protestants.  Thomas  approached 
mucli  nearer  to  Augustine  than  the  other  theologians  of  his  age. 
He  taught  (1.)  That  original  righteousness  was  to  Adam  a  super- 
natural gift.  (2.)  That  by  his  transgression  he  forfeited  that  gift 
for  iiimself  and  his  posterity.  (3.)  That  original  righteousness 
consisted  essentially  in  the  fixed  bias  of  the  will  towards  God,  or 
the  subjection  of  the  will  to  God.  (4.)  That  the  inevitable  conse- 
quence or  adjunct  of  the  loss  of  this  original  righteousness,  this 
conversion  of  the  will  towards  God,  is  the  aversion  of  the  will 
from  God.  (5.)  That  original  sin,  therefore,  consists  in  two  things, 
first,  the  loss  of  original  righteousness  and  second,  the  disorder  of 
the  whole  nature.  Tlie  one  he  called  the  formale  the  other  the 
materiale  of  original  sin.     To  use  his  own  illustration,  a  knife  is 

1  Examen  Concilii  Tridentini,  de  Peccato  Originale,  edit.  Frankfort,  1674,  part  i.  p.  100 

2  See  also  Kollner's  Symbolik,  vol.  ii.  p.  285. 


172  PART  11.   ch.  vni.  — sin. 

iron ;  the  iron  is  the  material,  the  form  is  tliat  which  makes  the 
material  a  knife.     So  in  original  sin  this  aversion  of  the  will  from 
God  (as  a  habit),  is  the  substance  of  original  sin,  it  owes  its  exist- 
ence and  nature  to  the  loss  of  original  righteousness.     (6.)  The 
soul,  therefore,  after  the  loss  of  its  primal  rectitude,  does  not  re- 
main in  puris  naturalibus,  but  is  in  a  state  of  corruption  and  sin. 
This  state  he  sometimes  calls   inordinatio  virium  animce ;  some- 
times a  deordinatio  ;  sometimes  aversio  voluntatis  a  bono  incom- 
municahili ;   sometimes   a  corrupt  disposition,  as  when  he  says,' 
"  Causa  hujns  corruptee  dispositionis,  quae  dicitur  originale  pecca- 
tum,  est  una  tantum,  scilicet  privatio  originalis  justitise,  per  quam 
sublata  est  subjectio  humanae  mentis  ad  Deum."     Most  frequently, 
in  accordance  with  the  usus  loquendi  of  his  own  and  of  subsequent 
periods,  this  positive  pai't  of  original  sin    is  called  concupiscence. 
This  is  a  word  which  it  is  very  important  to  understand,  because  it 
is  used  in  such  different  senses  even  in  relation  to  the  same  sub- 
ject.    Some  by  concupiscence  mean  simply  the   sexual    instinct ; 
others,  what  belongs  to  our   sensuous   nature  in  general ;  others, 
everything  in  man  which  has  the  seen  and  temporal  for  its  object ; 
and  others  still,  for  the  wrong  bias  of  the  soul,  by  which,  being 
averse  to  God,  it  turns  to  the  creature  and  to  evil.     Everything 
depends  therefore  on  the  sense  in  which  the  word  is  taken,  when 
it  is  said  that  original  sin  consists,  positively  considered,  in  concu- 
piscence.    If  by  concupiscence  is  meant  merely  our  sensuous  na- 
ture, then   original  sin   is  seated    mainly  in  the  body  and  in   the 
animal  affections,  and  the  higher  powers  of  the  soul  are  unaffected 
by  its  contamination.     B}'  Thomas  Aquinas  the  word  is  taken  in 
its  widest  sense,  as  is  obvious  from  its  equivalents  just  mentioned, 
aversion  from  God,  corrupt  disposition,  disorder,  or  deformity,  of 
the  powers  of  the  soul.     It  is  in  this  sense,  he   says,  "  Originale 
peccatum    concupiscentia    dicitur."     (7.)    As   to    the    constituent 
elements  of  this   original   corruption,  or   as   he  expresses    it,  the 
wounds  under  which  our  fallen  nature  is  suffering,  he  says,  they 
include,  (a.)  Ignorance  and  want  of  the  right  knowledge  of  God  in 
the  intelligence.     (6.)   An  aversion  in  the  will  from  the   highest 
good,    (c.)  In  the  feelings  or  affections,  or  rather  in  that  dej)artment 
of  our  nature  of  which  the  feelings  are  the  manifestations,  a  tend- 
ency to  delight  in  created  things.     The  seat  of  original  sin,  there- 
fore, with  him  is  the  whole  soul.      (8.)  This  concupiscence  or  inhe- 
rent corruption,  is  not  an  act,  or  agency,  or  activity,  but  a  habit, 
i.  e.,  an  immanent  inherent  disposition  of  the  niiiul.''^    (9.)   Finally, 

1  Summa,  ii.  i.  qu.  Ixxxii.  art.  ii.  edit.  Cologne,  1640,  p.  144  of  second  set.        2  jbid.  art  i 


§6.]      DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME       173 

original  sin  is  a  penal  evil.  The  loss  of  original  righteousness  and 
the  consequent  disorder  of  our  nature,  are  the  penalty  of  Adam's 
first  transgression.  So  far  the  doctiine  of  Thomas  is  in  strict  ac- 
cordance  with  that  of  Augustine.  His  discussion  of  the  subject 
might  be  framed  into  an  exposition  of  the  answer  in  the  "  West- 
minster Catechism  "  which  declares  the  sinfulness  of  that  estate 
into  which  men  fell,  to  consist  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the 
want  of  original  rigliteousness,  and  the  corruption  of  his  whole 
nature.  The  point  of  difference  relates  to  the  degree  of  injury 
received  from  the  apostasy  of  Adam,  or  the  depth  of  that  corrup- 
tion of  nature  derived  from  him.  This  Thomas  calls  a  languor  or 
weakness.  Men  in  consequence  of  the  fall  are  utterly  unable  to 
save  themselves,  or  to  do  anything  really  good  in  the  sight  of  God 
without  the  aid  of  divine  grace.  But  they  still  have  the  power 
to  cooperate  with  that  grace.  They  cannot,  as  the  Semi-Pelagians 
taught,  begin  the  woi.'k  of  turning  unto  God,  and  therefore  need 
preventing  grace  (^gratia  prceveniens'),  but  with  that  grace  they 
are  enabled  to  cooperate.  This  makes  the  difference  between  the 
effectual  (irresistible)  grace  of  Augustine,  and  the  synergism  which 
enters  into  all  other  systems. 

Doctrine  of  the  Scotists. 

4.  Duns  Scotus,  a  Franciscan,  Professor  of  Theology  at  Oxford, 
Paris,  and  Cologne,  where  he  died  a.  d.  1308,  was  the  great  oppo- 
nent of  Thomas  Aquinas.  So  far  as  the  subject  of  original  sin  is 
concerned,  he  sided  with  the  Semi-Pelagians.  He  made  original 
sin  to  consist  solely  in  the  loss  of  original  righteousness,  and  as  this 
was  purely  a  supernatural  gift,  not  pertaining  to  the  natui'e  of 
man,  its  loss  left  Adam  and  his  posterity  after  him,  precisely  in  the 
state  in  which  man  was  originally  created.  Whatever  of  disorder 
is  consequent  on  this  loss  of  righteousness  is  not  of  the  nature  of 
sin.  "  Peccatum  originale,"  he  says,  "  non  potest  esse  aliud  quam 
ista  privatio  [  justitias  originalis].  Non  enim  est  concupiscentia  : 
tum  quia  ilia  est  naturalis,  tum  quia  ipsa  est  in  parte  sensitiva,  ubi 
non  est  peccatum."  ^  Men,  therefore,  are  born  into  the  world  in 
puris  naturalibus,  not  in  the  Pelagian  sense,  as  Pelagians  do  not 
admit  any  supernatural  gift  of  righteousness  to  Adam,  but  in  the 
sense  that  they  possess  all  the  essential  attributes  of  their  nature 
uninjured  and  uncontaminated.  As  free  will,  i.  e.,  the  ability  to 
do  and  to  be  whatever  is  required  of  man  by  his  Maker,  belongs 
essentially  to  his  nature,  this  also  remains  since  the  fall.  It  is  in- 
1  Kollner's  SymboUk,  vol.  ii.  p.  295. 


174  PART  11.   ch.  vni.— sin. 

deed  weakened  and  beset  with  difficulties,  as  the  balance  wheel  of 
our  nature,  original  righteousness,  is  gone,  but  still  it  exists.  Man 
needs  divine  assistance.  He  cannot  do  good,  or  make  himself  good 
without  the  grace  of  God.  But  the  dependence  of  which  Scotus 
speaks  is  rather  that  of  the  creature  upon  the  creator,  than  that  of 
the  sinner  upon  the  Spirit  of  God.  His  endeavour  seems  to  have 
been  to  reduce  the  supernatural  to  the  natural  ;  to  confound  the 
distinction  constantly  made  in  the  Bible  and  by  the  Church,  be- 
tween the  providential  efficiency  of  God  everywhere  present  and 
always  operating  in  and  with  natural  causes,  and  the  efficiency 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  regeneration  and  sanctification  of  the 
soul.^ 

The  Dominicans  and  Franciscans  became,  and  long  continued  the 
two  most  powerful  orders  of  monks  in  the  Roman  Church.  As 
they  wei'e  antagonistic  on  so  many  other  points,  they  were  also 
opposed  in  doctrine.  The  Dominicans,  as  the  disciples  of  Thomas 
Aquinas,  were  called  Thomists,  and  the  Franciscans,  as  followers 
of  Duns  Scotus,  were  called  Scotists.  The  opposition  between 
these  parties,  among  other  doctrinal  points,  embraced  as  we  have 
seen,  that  of  original  sin.  The  Thomists  were  inclined  to  moderate 
Augustinianism,  the  Scotists  to  Semi-Pelagianism.  All  the  theories 
however  above  mentioned,  variously  modified,  had  their  zealous 
advocates  in  the  Latin  Church,  when  the  Council  of  Trent  was 
assembled  to  determine  authoritatively  the  true  doctrine  and  to 
erect  a  barrier  to  the  increasing  power  of  the  Reformation. 

Tridentine  Doctrine  on  Original  Sin. 

The  Council  of  Trent  had  a  very  difficult  task  to  perform.  In 
the  first  place,  it  was  necessary  to  condemn  the  doctrines  of  the  Re- 
formers. But  the  Protestants,  as  well  Lutheran  as  Reformed,  had 
proclaimed  their  adherence  to  the  Augustinian  system  in  its  purity 
and  fulness  ;  and  that  system  had  received  the  sanction  of  coun- 
cils and  popes  and  could  not  be  directly  impugned.  This  difficult}'' 
was  surmounted  by  grossly  misrepresenting  the  Protestant  doc- 
trine, and  making  it  appear  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  Au- 
gustine. This  method  has  been  persevered  in  to  the  present  day. 
Moehler  in  his  "  Symbolik  "  represents  the  doctrine  of  the  Protes- 
tants, and  especially  that  of  Luther,  on  original  sin,  as  a  form  of 
Manicheism.  The  other,  and  more  serious  difficulty,  was  the  great 
diversity  of  opinion  existing  in  the  Church  and  in  the  Council  it- 
self.    Some  were  Augustinians  ;  some  held  that  original  sin  con- 

1  Ritter'a  Geschichle  der  chnstlichen  Philosophie,  vol.  iv.  pp.  354-472. 


§6.]  DOCTRINE   OF  THE  CHURCH   OF  ROME.  175 

sisted  simply  in  the  want  of  original  righteousness,  but  that  that 
want  is  sin.  Others  admitted  no  original  sin,  but  the  imputation 
of  Adam's  first  transgression.  Others,  with  the  Dominicans,  in- 
sisted that  the  disorder  of  all  the  powers  consequent  on  the  loss  of 
original  righteousness,  i.  e.,  concupiscence,  is  truly  and  properly 
sin.  This  the  Franciscans  denied.  Under  these  circumstances 
the  pontifical  legates,  who  attended  the  Council,  exhorted  the  assem- 
bled fatiiers,  that  they  should  decide  nothing  as  to  the  nature  of 
original  sin,  reminding  them  that  they  were  not  called  together  to 
teach  doctrines,  but  to  condemn  errors.^  This  advice  the  Council 
endeavoured  to  follow,  and  hence  its  decisions  are  expressed  in  very 
general  terms. 

1.  The  Synod  pronounces  an  anathema  on  those  who  do  not 
confess  that  Adam,  when  he  transgressed  in  paradise  the  command- 
ment of  God,  did  immediately  lose  the  holiness  and  righteousness 
in  which  he  had  been  constituted  (constitutus  fuerat^  ov  po situs 
eraf)  ;  and  that  by  that  offence  he  incurred  the  wrath  and  indigna- 
tion of  God,  and  thus  also  death  and  subjection  to  him  who  has 
the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil ;  and  that  the  whole  Adam 
by  the  offence  of  his  transgression  was  as  to  the  body  and  the  soul, 
changed  for  the  worst. 

The  effects  of  Adam's  first  sin  upon  himself  therefore  was  : 
(1.)  The  loss  of  original  righteousness.  (2.)  Death  and  captivity 
to  Satan.  (3.)  The  deterioration  of  his  whole  nature  both  soul 
and  body. 

2.  The  Synod  also  anathematizes  those  who  say  that  the  sin  of 
Adam  injured  himself  only,  and  not  his  posterity ;  or  that  he  lost 
the  holiness  and  righteousness  which  he  received  from  God,  for 
himself  only  and  not  also  for  us,  or  that  he  transmitted  to  the 
whole  human  race  only  death  and  corjioreal  pains  (^poenas  cor- 
poris^, and  not  sin,  which  is  the  death  of  the  soul. 

It  is  here  taught  that  the  effects  of  Adam's  sin  upon  his  poster- 
ity are  :  (1.)  The  loss  of  original  righteousness.  (2.)  Death 
and  the  miseries  of  this  life  ;  and  (3.)  Sin,  or  spiritual  death 
Qpeccatum,  quod  est  mors  animoe).  This  is  a  distinct  condemna- 
tion of  Pelagianism,  and  the  clear  assertion  of  original  sin,  as 
something  transmitted  to  all  men.  The  nature  of  that  sin,  how- 
ever, is  not  further  stated  than  that  it  is  the  death  of  the  soul, 
which  may  be  differently  explained. 

3.  Those  also  are  condemned  who  say  that  this  sin  of  Adam, 
which  is  conveyed   to   all  (omnibus  transfusum),  and  inheres  in 

1  Moehler's  SymboUk,  6th  edition,  p.  57. 


176  PART  II.   Ch.  vm.  —  sin. 

every  one  as  his  own  sin  (inest  unicuique  propriurn),  can  be  re- 
moved bj  the  powers  of  human  nature,  or  by  any  other  remedy 
than  the  merit  of  our  one  Mediator,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
hath  reconciled  us  to  God  by  his  blood,  and  who  is  made  unto  us 
righteousness,  sanctlfication,  and  redemption. 

It  is  here  asserted:  (1.)  That  original  sin  is  conveyed  by  propa- 
gation and  not,  as  the  Pelagians  say,  by  imitation.  (2.)  That  it 
belongs  to  every  man  and  inhex-es  in  him.  (3.)  That  it  cannot  be 
removed  by  any  other  means  tlian  the  blood  of  Christ. 

4.  The  Synod  condemns  all  wlio  teach  that  new-born  children 
should  not  be  baptized ;  or,  that  although  baptized  for  the  remission 
of  sins,  they  derive  nothing  of  original  sin  from  Adam,  whicli 
needs  to  be  expiated  in  the  laver  of  regeneration  in  order  to  attain 
eternal  life,  so  that  baptism,  in  their  case,  would  not  be  true  but 
false.  Children,  therefore,  who  cannot  liave  committed  sin,  in 
their  own  persons,  are  truly  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  that 
what  they  had  contracted  in  generation,  may  be  purged  away  in 
r<?generation. 

From  this  it  appears  that  according  to  the  Council  of  Trent  there 
is  sin  in  new-born  infants  which  needs  to  be  remitted  and  washed 
away  by  regeneration. 

5.  The  fifth  canon  asserts  that  through  the  grace  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  conferred  in  baptism,  the  guilt  of  original  sin  is  remit- 
ted, and  everything  is  removed  which  has  the  true  and  proper  natui-e 
of  sin.  It  is  admitted  that  concupiscence  (yel  fomes)  remains  in 
the  baptized,  against  Avhich  believers  are  to  contend,  but  it  is  de- 
clared that  this  concupiscence,  although  sometimes  (as  is  admitted) 
called  sin  by  the  Apostle,  is  not  truly  and  properly  sin  in  the  re- 
generated. 

This  is  all  that  the  Council  teaches  under  the  caption  of  original 
sin,  except  to  say  that  they  do  not  intend  their  decisions  to  apply 
to  the  Virgin  Mary.  Whether  she  was  the  subject  of  original  sin, 
as  the  Dominicans,  after  Thomas  Aquinas,  maintained,  or  whether 
she  was  immaculately  conceived,  as  zealously  asserted  by  the  Fran- 
ciscans after  Duns  Scotus,  the  Synod  leav^es  undecided. 

In  the  sixth  session  when  treating  of  justification  (i.  e.,  regen- 
eration and  sanctification),  the  Council  decides  several  points,  which 
20  to  determine  the  A'iew  its  members  took  of  the  nature  of  orio;inal 
sin.  In  the  canons  adopted  in  that  session,  it  is  among  other 
things,  declared  :  (1.)  That  men  cannot  without  divine  grace 
through  Jesus  Christ,  by  their  own  works,  i.  e.,  works  performed 
in  their  own  strength,  be  justified  before  God.     (2.)  That  grace 


§6.]  DOCTKINE  OF   THE  CHURCH   OF   ROME.  177 

is  not  given  simply  to  render  good  works  more  easy.  (3.)  That 
men  cannot  believe,  hope,  love,  or  repent  so  as  to  secure  regen- 
erating grace  without  the  preventing  grace  of  God  (^sine  prce- 
venienti  Spiritus  inspiratione,  atque  ejus  adjutorio').  (4.)  Men 
can  cooperate  with  this  preventing  grace,  can  assent  to,  or  reject 
it.  (5.)  Men  have  not  lost  their  liberum  arhitrium,  ability  to 
good  or  evil  by  the  fall.  (6.)  AH  works  done  before  regeneration 
are  not  sinful. 

From  all  this  it  appears  that  while  the  Council  of  Trent  rejected 
the  Pelagian  doctrine  of  man's  plenary  ability  since  the  fall,  and 
the  Semi-Pelagian  doctrine  that  men  can  begin  the  work  of  refor- 
mation and  conversion  ;  it  no  less  clearly  condemns  the  Augustin- 
ian  doctrine  of  the  entire  inability  of  man  to  do  anything  spiritually 
good,  wliereby  he  may  prepare  or  dispose  himself  for  conversion, 
or  merit  the  regenerating  grace  of  God. 

The  True  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

What  was  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  as  to  origi- 
nal sin,  remained  as  much  in  doubt  after  the  decisions  of  this  Coun- 
cil as  it  had  been  before.  Each  party  interpreted  its  canons  accord- 
ing to  their  own  views.  The  Synod  declares  that  all  men  are  born 
infected  with  original  sin  ;  but  whether  that  sin  consisted  simply  in 
the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin  ;  or  in  the  want  of  original  righteous- 
ness ;  or  in  concupiscence,  is  left  undecided.  And  therefore  all 
these  views  continued  to  be  maintained  by  the  theologians  of  the 
Romish  Church.  The  older  Protestants  generally  regarded  the 
canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent  as  designed  to  obscure  the  subject, 
and  held  that  the  real  Doctrine  of  the  Church  involved  the  denial  of 
any  original  sin  in  the  sense  of  sin,  subjective  or  inherent.  In  this 
view,  many,  if  not  the  majority  of  modern  theologians  concur. 
Winer  (in  his  "  Comparative  Darstellung,")  Guericke  (in  his 
"  Symbolik  "),  Koellner  (in  his  "  Symbolik  "),  Baur  (in  his  ^'  An- 
swer to  Moehler"),  and  Dr.  Shedd,  in  his  "  History  of  Christian 
Doctrine,"  all  represent  the  Church  of  Rome  as  teaching  that  orig- 
inal sin  is  merely  negative,  the  want  of  original  righteousness,  and 
as  denying  that  there  is  anything  subjective  in  the  state  of  human 
nature  as  men  are  born  into  the  world,  which  has  the  proper 
nature  of  sin.  The  reasons  which  favour  this  view  of  the  subject, 
are,  — 

1.  The  prevailing  doctrine  of  the  schoolmen  and  of  the  Romish 
theologians  as  to  the  nature  of  sin.  According  to  Protestants, 
"  Quidquid  a  norma  justitise  in  Deo  dissidet,  et  cum   ea  pugnat, 

VOL.   II.  12 


178  PART  II.     Cn.  YIII.  —  SIN. 

habet  rationem  peccati."  ^  To  this  the  Romanists  oppose  from 
Andradius  tlie  definition  :  "  Quod  nihil  liabeat  rationem  peccati 
nisi  fiat  a  volente  et  sciente."  If  this  be  so,  tlien  it  is  impossible 
that  there  should  be  any  inherent  or  innate  sin.  As  infants  are 
not  "  knowing  and  willing,"  in  the  sense  of  moral  agents,  they  can- 
not have  sin.  Bcllarmin  ^  says:  "  Non  satis  est  ad  culpam,  ut 
aliquid  sit  voluntarium  habituali  voluntate,  sed  requiritur,  ut  pro- 
cesserit  ab  actu  etiam  voluntario  :  Alioqui  voluntarium  illud,  hab- 
ituale  voluntate,  naturale  esset,  et  misericordia  non  reprehensione 
dignum."  He  says,  that  if  a  man  were  created  in  purls  yiatural- 
ibus,  without  grace,  and  with  this  opposition  of  the  flesh  to  the  rea- 
son, he  would  not  be  a  sinner.  With  the  loss  of  original  righteous- 
ness there  is  unavoidably  connected  this  rebellion  of  the  lower 
against  the  higher  nature  of  man.  With  the  loss  of  the  bias  of  the 
will  toward  God,  is  of  necessity  connected  aversion  to  God.  This 
obliquity  of  the  will  which  attends  original  sin,  is  not  sin  in  itself, 
yet  it  is  sin  in  us.  For  Bellarmin  says,  there  is  a  "  perversio  vol- 
untatis et  obliquitas  unicuique  inhaerens,  per  quam  peccatores  pro- 
prie  et  formaliter  dicimur,  cum  primum  homines  esse  incipimus." 
This  certainly  appears  contradictory.  The  perversion  of  the  will, 
or  concupiscence,  consequent  on  the  loss  of  original  righteousness, 
is  not  itself  sinful.  Nevertheless,  it  constitutes  us  properly  and 
formally  sinners,  as  soon  as  we  begin  to  exist.  Nothing  is  of  the 
nature  of  sin  but  voluntary  action,  or  what  proceeds  from  it,  and 
yet  infants  are  sinners  from  their  birth.  He  attempts  to  reconcile 
these  contradictions  by  saying:  "  Peccatum  in  Adamo  actuale  et 
personale  in  nobis  originaliter  dicitur.  Solus  enim  ipse  actuali 
voluntate  illud  commisit,  nobis  vero  communicatur  per  genera- 
tionem  eo  modo,  quo  communicari  potest  id,  quod  transiit,  nimirum 
per  imputationem.  Omnibus  enim  imputatur,  qui  ex  Adamo  nas- 
cuntur,  quonlam  omnes  in  lumbis  Adami  existentes  in  eo  et  per 
eum  peccavimus,  cum  ipse  peccavit."  That  is,  the  voluntary  act 
of  Adam  was  at  the  same  time  the  act  of  the  will  of  ail  his  de- 
scendants. Thus  original  sin  is  sin  in  us,  although  nothing  is  sin  in 
any  creature  which  does  not  consist  in  an  act  of  his  own  will,  or 
which  does  not  flow  from  such  act.  To  this,  however,  Baur  prop- 
erly remarks  :  "  What  is  an  act  of  a  non-existing  will,  an  act  to 
which  the  nature  of  sin  is  attributed,  although  it  lies  entirely  out- 
side of  the  individual  consciousness  ?  Can  any  meaning  be  attached 
to  such  a  representation  ?    Does  it  not  destroy  the  idea  of  guilt  and 

1  Chemnitz,  Examen  ConcilU  Tridentini,  i.  iv.  edit.  Frankfort,  1674,  p.  116. 

2  De  Amissione  Gratia  et  Statu  Peccati,  v.  xviii.,  Disputationes,  vol.  iv.  p.  333,  d. 


§6.]  DOCTRINE   OF   THE  CHURCH   OF   ROME.  179 

sin,  that  it  is  imputed  only  because  it  is  tz'ansmitted<n  ordinary  gen- 
eration ?  "  1  If  a  man  or  a  church  hold  a  theory  of  the  nature  of 
sin  which  is  incompatible  with  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  it  is 
argued,  the  existence  of  any  such  sin  is  thereby  denied.  (2.)  An- 
other reason  urged  in  favour  of  the  position  that  the  Church  of 
Rome  denies  original  sin,  is  drawn  from  what  that  Church  teaches 
of  original  ricrhteousness.  If  orlcrinal  rio-hteousness  be  a  supernat- 
ural  gift  not  belonging  to  the  integrity  of  man's  nature,  its  loss 
leaves  him  in  the  state  in  which  he  came  from  the  hands  of  his 
Maker.  And  that  state  cannot  be  sinful  unless  God  be  the  author 
of  sin.  Even  Bellarmin,  who  contends  for  original  sin,  in  a  cer- 
tain sense,  still  says  that  man  since  the  fall  is  in  the  same  state 
that  Adam  was  as  he  was  created.  "  Non  magis  differt  status  hom- 
inis  post  lapsum  Adee  a  statu  ejusdem  in  puris  naturalibus,  quam 
differat  spoliatus  a  nudo,  neque  deterior  est  humana  natura,  si 
culpam  originalem  detrahas,  neque  magis  ignorantia  et  infirmi- 
tate  laborat,  quam  esset  et  laboraret  in  puris  naturalibus  condita. 
Proinde  corruptio  naturae  non  ex  alicujus  doni  naturalis  carentia, 
neque  ex  alicujus  malae  qualitatis  accessu,  sed  ex  sola  doni  super- 
naturalis  ob  Adse  peccatum  amissione  profluxit.^  (3.)  The  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  expressly  declares  that  concupiscence  in  the  baptized, 
i.  e.,  the  regenerated,  is  not  of  the  nature  of  sin.  Then  it  cannot 
be  in  the  unbaptized  ;  for  its  nature  is  not  changed  by  baptism. 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  it  may  be  urged,  (1.)  That  the 
Council  of  Trent  expressly  declares  against  the  Pelagian  doctrine, 
that  Adam's  sin  injured  only  himself,  and  asserts  that  our  whole 
nature,  soul,  and  body,  was  thereby  changed  for  the  worse.  (2.) 
They  assert  that  we  derived  from  Adam  not  merely  a  mortal 
nature,  but  sin  which  is  the  death  of  the  soul.  (3.)  That  new-born 
infants  need  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sin,  and  that  what  is  re- 
moved in  the  baptism  of  infants,  veram  et  propriam peccati  rationem 
habet.  (4.)  The  Roman  Catechism  teaches  ^  that  "  we  are  born 
in  sin,"  that  we  are  oppressed  with  corrupticm  of  nature  (naturce 
vitio  premimur)  and,*  that  we  nihil  simus,  nisi  putida  caro ;  that 
the  virus  of  sin  penetrates  to  the  very  bones,  i.  e.,  ratioiiem,  et 
voluntatem,  quce  maxime  solidce  sunt  animce  partes.  This  last 
passage  does  not  refer  ex})ressly  to  original  sin,  but  to  the  state  of 
men  generallv  as  sinners.  Nevertheless,  it  indicates  the  view 
taken  by  the  Roman  Church  as  to  the  present  condition  of  human 

1  KntftoUcismus  tend  Protestaniurnus,  Tubingen,  1836 ;  second  edit.  p.  92,  notv. 

2  De  Gratia  Primi  Hominh,  cap.  v.;  Dhputationes,  edit.  I'aris,  1608,  vol.  iv.  p.  16,  d,  e. 

3  P.  iii.  c.  10,  qu.  4;  Streitwolf,  Libri  Symbolici  Ecchsia  CathoHcce,  vol.  i.  p.  579. 
*  V.  iv.  c.  1-i,  qu.  5;  /bid.  pp.  675,  676. 


180  PART  11.  ch.  vm.  — sin. 

nature.  (5.)  *Bellarinin,  who  is  often  quoted  to  prove  that  Ro- 
manists make  original  sin  merely  the  loss  of  original  righteousness, 
says :  "  Si  privationem  justitiae  originalis  ita  velit  esse  effectum 
peccati,  ut  non  sit  etiam  ipsa  vere  proprieque  peccatum,  Concilio 
Triclentino  manifesto  repugnat,  neque  distingui  potest  a  sententia 
Catharini "  (who  made  original  sin  to  consist  solely  in  the  imputa- 
tion of  Adam's  first  sin). 

From  all  this  it  appears  that  although  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman 
Church  is  neither  logical  nor  self-consistent,  it  is  nevertheless  true 
that  that  Church  does  teach  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  in  the 
sense  of  a  sinful  corruption  of  nature,  or  of  innate,  hereditary  sin- 
fulness. It  is  also  to  be  observed  that  all  parties  in  the  Roman 
Church,  before  and  after  the  Council  of  Trent,  however  much 
they  differed  in  other  points,  united  in  teaching  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin  ;  i.  e.,  that  for  that  sin  the  sentence  of  condemnation 
passed  upon  all  men. 

§  7.  Protestant  Doctrine  of  iSin. 

The  Protestant  Churches  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  did  not 
attempt  to  determine  the  nature  of  sin  philosophically.  They  re- 
garded it  neither  as  a  necessary  limitation  ;  nor  as  a  negation  of 
being ;  nor  as  the  indispensable  condition  of  virtue  ;  nor  as  having 
its  seat  in  man's  sensuous  nature  ;  nor  as  consisting  in  selfishness 
alone  ;  nor  as  being,  like  pain,  a  mere  state  of  consciousness,  and 
not  an  evil  in  the  sight  of  God.  Founding  their  doctrine  on  their 
moral  and  religious  consciousness  and  upon  the  Word  of  God,  they 
declared  sin  to  be  the  transgression  of,  or  want  of  conformity  to 
the  divine  law.  In  this  definition  all  classes  of  theologians,  Lu- 
theran and  Reformed,  agree.  According  to  Melancthon,  "  Pecca- 
tum recte  definitur  avofXLa,  sen  discrepantia  a  lege  Dei,  h.  e.,  defec- 
tus  naturas  et  actionum  pugnans  cum  lege  Dei,  easdemque  ex  ordine 
justitise  divinae  ad  poenam  obligans."  Gerhard  says :  ^  "  Peccatum  " 
seu  "  dvo/jLLa  "  est  "  aberratio  a  lege,  sive  non  congruentia  cum  lege, 
sive  ea  in  ipsa  natura  hserat,  sive  in  dictis,  factis  ac  concupiscentiae 
motibus,  inveniatur."  Baier  says  :^  "  Carentia  conformitatis  cum 
lege."  Vitringa  says :  ^  "  Forma  peccati  est  disconvenientia  actus, 
habitus,  aut  status  hominis  cum  divina  lege." 

It  is  included  in  these  definitions,  (1.)  That  sin  is  a  specific 
evil,  differing  from  all  other  forms  of  evil.     (2.)  That  sin   stands 

1  Loci  Theohyici,  xi.  i.  3;  edit.  Tubingen,  1766,  vol.  v.  p.  2,  b. 

2  Compendium  Theologias,   edit.  Frankfort,  1739,  p.  346. 

8  Doclrina  ChristianoB  Religionis,  x.  7 ;  edit.  Lyons,  1762,  vol.  ii.  pp.  285,  286. 


§  7.]  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINE.  181 

related  to  law.  The  two  are  correlative,  so  that  where  there  is 
no  law,  there  can  be  no  sin.  (3.)  That  the  law  to  which  sin  is 
thus  related,  is  not  merely  the  law  of  reason,  or  of  conscience,  or 
of  expediency,  but  the  law  of  God.  (4.)  That  sin  consists  essen- 
tially in  the  want  of  conformity  on  the  pai't  of  a  rational  creature, 
to  the  nature  or  law  of  God.  (5.)  That  it  includes  guilt  and 
moral  pollution. 

Sin  is  a  Specific  Evil. 

Sin  is  a  specific  evil.  This  we  know  from  our  own  consciousness. 
None  but  a  sentient  being  can  know  what  feeling;  is.  We  can  nei- 
ther  determine  a  priori  what  the  nature  of  a  sensation  is,  nor  can 
we  convey  the  idea  to  any  one  destitute  of  the  organs  of  sense. 
Unless  we  had  felt  pain  or  pleasure,  we  should  not  be  able  to  un- 
derstand what  those  words  mean.  If  born  blind,  we  cannot  know 
light.  If  born  deaf,  we  can  have  no  idea  of  what  hearing  is. 
None  but  a  rational  creature  can  know  what  is  meant  by  folly. 
Only  creatures  with  an  aesthetic  nature  can  have  the  perception  of 
beauty  or  of  deformity.  In  like  manner  only  moral  beings  can 
know  what  sin  or  holiness  is.  Knowledge  in  all  these  cases  is 
given  immediately  in  the  consciousness.  It  would  be  in  vain  to 
attempt  to  determine  a  priori^  what  pain,  pleasure,  sight,  and  hear- 
ing are  ;  much  less  to  prove  that  there  are  no  such  sensations  ; 
or  that  they  do  not  differ  from  each  other  and  from  every  other 
form  of  our  experience.  Every  man  in  virtue  of  his  being  a 
moral  creature,  and  because  he  is  a  sinner,  has  therefore  in  his 
own  consciousness  the  knowledge  of  sin.  He  knows  that  when  he 
is  not  what  he  ought  to  be,  when  he  does  what  he  ought  not  to  do ; 
or  omits  what  he  ought  to  do,  he  is  chargeable  with  sin.  He  knows 
that  sin  is  not  simply  limitation  of  his  nature  ;  not  merely  a  sub- 
jective state  of  his  own  mind,  having  no  character  in  the  sight  of 
God ;  that  it  is  not  only  something  which  is  unwise,  or  derogatory 
to  his  own  dignity  ;  or  simply  inexpedient  because  hurtful  to  his 
own  interests,  or  injurious  to  the  welfare  of  others.  He  knows 
that  it  has  a  specific  character  of  its  own,  and  that  it  includes  both 
guilt  and  pollution. 

Sin  has  Relation  to  Law. 

A  second  truth  included  in  our  consciousness  of  sin  is,  that  it  has 
relation  to  law.  As  moral  and  rational  beings  we  are  of  necessity 
subject  to  the  law  of  right.  This  is  included  in  the  consciousness 
of  obligation.     The  word  ought  would  otherwise  have  no  meaning. 


182  PART  n.   Ch.  vin.  — sin. 

To  say  we  ought,  is  to  say  we  are  bound ;  tliat  we  are  under  au- 
thority of  some  kind.  The  word  law,  in  relation  to  moral  and 
religious  subjects,  is  used  iu  two  senses.  First,  it  sometimes  means 
a  controlling  power,  as  when  the  Apostle  says  that  he  had  a  law  in 
his  members  warring  against  the  law  of  his  mind.  Secondly,  it 
means,  that  which  binds,  a  command  of  one  in  authority.  This  is 
the  common  sense  of  the  term  in  the  New  Testament.  As  the  rule 
which  binds  the  conscience  of  men,  and  prescribes  what  they  are 
to  do  and  not  to  do,  has  been  variously  revealed  in  the  constitution 
of  our  nature,  in  the  Decalogue,  in  the  Mosaic  institutions,  and  in 
the  whole  Scriptures,  the  word  is  sometimes  used  in  a  sense  to 
include  all  these  forms  of  revelation  ;  sometimes  in  reference  ex- 
clusively to  one  of  them,  and  sometimes  exclusively  in  reference  to 
another.  In  all  cases  the  general  idea  is  retained.  The  law  is 
that  which  binds  the  conscience. 

Sin  is  Related  to  the  Laio  of  God. 

The  great  question  is.  What  is  that  law  which  prescribes  to  man 
what  he  ought  to  be  and  to  do?  (1.)  Some  say  it  is  our  own 
reason,  or  the  higher  powers  of  the  soul.  Those  powers  have  the 
prerogative  to  rule.  Man  is  autonomic.  He  is  responsible  to  him- 
self. He  is  bound  to  subject  his  life,  and  especially  his  lower 
powers,  to  his  reason  and  conscience.  Regard  to  his  own  dignity 
is  the  comprehensive  obligation  under  which  he  lies,  and  he  fulfils 
all  his  duties  when  he  lives  worthily  of  himself.  To  this  theory  it 
is  obvious  to  object,  (a.)  Tliat  law  is  something  outside  of  our- 
selves and  over  us  ;  entirely  independent  of  our  will  or  reason. 
We  can  neither  make  nor  alter  it.  If  our  reason  and  conscience 
are  perverted,  and  determine  that  to  be  right  which  is  in  its  nature 
wrong,  it  does  not  alter  the  case.  Tlie  law  remains  unchanged  in 
its  demands  and  in  its  autiiority.  (S.)  On  this  theory  there  could 
be  no  sense  of  guilt.  When  a  man  acts  against  the  dictates  of  his 
reason,  or  in  a  manner  derogatory  to  the  dignity  of  his  nature,  he 
may  feel  ashamed,  or  degraded,  but  not  guilty.  There  can  be  no 
conviction  that  he  is  amenable  to  justice,  nor  any  of  that  fearful 
looking  for  of  judgment,  which  the  Apostle  says  is  inseparable  from 
the  commission  of  sin.  (2.)  Others  say  the  law  is  to  be  found  in 
the  moral  order  of  the  universe,  or  in  the  eternal  fitness  of  things. 
These  however  are  mere  abstractions.  They  can  impose  no  obli- 
gation, and  inflict  no  penalty  on  transgression.  This  theory  again 
leaves  out  of  view,  and  entirely  unaccounted  for,  some  of  the 
plainest  facts  of  the  universal  consciousness  of  men.     (3.)   Others 


§  7.]  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINE.  183 

again  say  that  an  enlightened  regard  to  the  happiness  of  the 
universe  is  the  only  law  to  which  rational  creatures  are  subject. 
(4.)  Others  take  a  still  lower  view,  and  say  that  it  is  an  enlightened 
regard  to  our  own  happiness  which  alone  has  authority  over  men. 
It  is  evident,  however,  that  these  theories  deny  the  specific  char- 
acter of  moral  obligation.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  sin,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  unwise  or  the  inexpedient.  There  can  be  no 
sense  of  guilt,  no  responsibility  to  justice,  except  for  violations  of 
rules  of  expediency.  (5.)  It  is  clear  from  the  very  constitution 
of  our  nature  that  we  are  subject  to  the  authority  of  a  rational 
and  moral  being,  a  Spirit,  whom  we  know  to  be  infinite,  eternal, 
and  immutable  in  his  being  and  perfections.  All  men,  in  every 
age  and  in  every  part  of  the  world,  under  all  forms  of  religion, 
and  of  every  degree  of  culture,  have  felt  and  acknowledged  that 
they  were  subject  to  a  personal  being  higher  than  themselves.  No 
forms  of  speculative  philosophy,  however  plausible  or  however 
widely  diffused  or  confidently  held  in  the  schools  or  in  the  closet, 
have  ever  availed  to  invalidate  this  instinctive  or  intuitive  judg- 
ment of  the  mind.  Men  ignorant  of  the  true  God  have  fashioned 
for  themselves  imaginary  gods,  whose  wrath  they  have  deprecated 
and  whose  fixvour  they  have  endeavoured  to  propitiate.  But  when 
the  Scriptural  idea  of  God,  as  an  infinitely  perfect  personal  Being, 
has  been  once  presented  to  the  mind,  it  can  never  be  discarded. 
It  commends  itself  to  the  reason  and  the  conscience.  It  solves 
all  the  enigmas  of  our  nature.  It  satisfies  all  our  desii'es  and  aspi- 
rations :  and  to  this  Being,  to  him  and  to  his  will,  we  feel  ourselves 
bound  to  be  conformed,  and  know  ourselves  to  be  responsible  for 
our  character  and  conduct.  This  allegiance  we  cannot  possibly 
throw  off.  The  law  of  gravitation  no  more  inexorably  binds  the 
earth  to  its  orbit  than  our  moral  nature  binds  us  to  our  allegiance 
and  responsibility  to  God.  It  would  be  as  unreasonable  to  deny 
the  one  as  the  other,  and  as  useless  to  argue  against  the  one  as 
against  the  other.  This  is  clearly  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostle  in 
the  passage  just  referred  to.  He  was  speaking  of  the  most  de- 
based and  vicious  of  the  heathen  world,  men  whom  God  had  given 
I  up  to  a  reprobate  mind  ;  and  yet  he  asserts  that  they  not  only  knew 
God,  but  knew  his  righteous  judgment ;  that  they  who  commit 
sin  were  worthy  of  death  ;  that  is,  that  they  were  rightfully  sub- 
ject to  the  authority,  and  inevitably  exposed  to  the  wrath  and 
indignation,  of  a  moral  ruler.  This  is  a  fact  therefore  given  in  the 
universal  consciousness  of  men.  Sin  is  related  to  law,  and  that 
law  is  not  one  of  our  own  enacting,  it  is  not  a  mei'e  idea  or  ab- 


184  PART  n.    Ch.   Vni.  -  SIN. 

straction,  it  is  not  mere  truth  or  reason,  or  the  fitness  of  things, 
but  the  nature  and  will  of  God.  Law,  as  it  reveals  itself  in  the 
conscience,  implies  a  law-giver,  a  being  of  whose  will  it  is  the 
expression,  and  who  has  the  power  and  the  purpose  to  enforce  all 
its  demands.  And  not  onlj  this,  but  one  who,  from  the  very  per- 
fection of  his  nature,  must  enforce  them.  He  can  no  more  pass 
bj  transgression  than  he  can  love  evil.  It  is  in  vain  to  argue 
against  these  convictions.  It  is  in  vain  to  say,  There  is  no  God, 
no  Being  on  whom  we  are  dependent,  and  to  whom  we  are  respon- 
sible for  our  character  and  conduct. 

The  Extent  of  the  Law's  Demands. 

The  next  question  is,  What  does  this  law  demand  ?  This  is  the 
point  on  which  there  has  been  most  diversity  of  opinion,  and  sys- 
tems of  theology  as  well  as  of  morals  are  founded  on  the  different 
answers  which  it  has  received.  The  answer  given  by  the  unso- 
phisticated and  enlightened  conscience  of  men,  and  by  the  word 
of  God,  is  that  the  law  demands  complete  perfection,  or  the  entire 
conformity  of  the  moral  nature  and  conduct  of  a  rational  creature 
with  the  nature  and  will  of  God.  We  are  commanded  to  love 
God  with  all  the  heart,  with  all  the  soul,  with  all  the  strength,  and 
with  all  the  mind,  and  our  neighbour  as  ourselves.  This  implies 
entire  congeniality  with  God  ;  the  unreserved  consecration  of  all 
our  powers  to  his  service,  and  absolute  submission  to  his  will. 
Nothing  more  than  this  can  be  required  of  any  creature.  No 
angel  or  glorified  saint  can  be  or  do  more  than  this,  and  this  is 
what  the  law  demands  of  every  rational  creature,  at  all  times,  and 
in  every  state  of  his  being.  In  one  sense  this  obligation  is  limited 
by  the  capacity  (not  the  ability,  in  the  modern  theological  sense  of 
that  term)  of  the  creature.  The  capacity  of  a  child  is  less  than 
that  of  an  adult  Christian  or  of  an  angel.  He  can  know  less.  He 
can  contain  less.  He  is  on  a  lower  stage  of  being.  But  it  is  the 
absolute  moral  perfection  of  the  child,  of  the  adult,  or  of  the  angel 
that  the  law  demands.  And  this  perfection  includes  the  entire 
absence  of  all  sin,  and  the  entire  conformity  of  nature  to  the  image 
and  will  of  God.  As  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  so  also  it  is 
the  teaching  of  conscience.  Every  man,  at  least  every  Christian, 
feels  that  he  sins  or  is  sinful  whenever  and  howsoever  he  comes 
short  of  full  conformity  to  the  image  of  God.  He  feels  that  lan- 
guor, coldness  of  affection,  defect  of  zeal,  and  the  want  of  due 
humility,  gratitude,  meekness,  forbearance,  and  benevolence  are  in 
him  of  the  nature  of  sin.     The  old  maxim,  omne  minus  bonum 


§  7.]  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINE.  185 

Jiahet  rationem  mali,  authenticates  itself  in  the  conscience  of  every 
unsoj)histical  believer.  This  was  the  doctrine  of  Augustine, 
who  in  his  letter  to  Jerome,^  says  :  "  Plenissima  (caritas)  quce  jam 
non  possit  augeri,  quamdiu  hie  homo  vivit,  est  in  nemine ;  quamdiu 
autem  augeri  potest,  profecto  illud,  quod  minus  est  quani  debet,  ex 
vitio  est."  The  Lutheran  and  Reformed  theologians  assert  the 
same  principle.^  If  this  pi'inciple  be  correct,  if  the  law  demands 
entii'e  conformity  to  the  nature  and  will  of  God,  it  follows;  — 

1.  That  there  can  be  no  perfection  in  this  life.  Every  form  of 
perfectionism  which  has  ever  prevailed  in  the  Church  is  founded 
either  on  the  assumption  that  the  law  does  not  demand  entire  free- 
dom from  moral  evil,  or  upon  the  denial  that  anything  is  of  the 
nature  of  sin,  but  acts  of  the  will.  But  if  the  law  is  so  extensive  in 
its  demands  as  to  pi'onounce  all  defect  in  any  duty,  all  coming 
short  in  the  purity,  ardour,  or  constancy  of  holy  affections,  sinful, 
then  there  is  an  end  to  the  presumption  that  any  mere  man  since 
the  fall  has  ever  attained  perfection. 

2.  It  follows  also  from  this  principle  that  there  can  never  be  any 
merit  of  good  works  attributable  to  men  in  this  world.  By  merit, 
according  to  the  Scriptural  sense  of  that  word,  is  meant  the  claim 
upon  reward  as  a  matter  of  justice,  founded  on  the  complete  sat- 
isfaction of  the  demands  of  the  law.  But  if  those  demands  never 
have  been  perfectly  fulfilled  by  any  fallen  man,  no  such  man  can 
either  be  justified  for  his  works,  or  have,  as  the  Apostle  expresses 
it,  any  Kav'^^/xa,  any  claim  founded  on  merit  in  the  sight  of  God. 
He  must  always  depend  on  mercy  and  expect  eternal  life  as  a  free 
gift  of  God. 

3.  Still  more  obviously  does  it  follow  from  the  principle  in  ques- 
tion that  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  works  of  supererogation.  If 
no  man  in  this  life  can  perfectly  keep  the  commandments  of  God,  it 
is  very  plain  that  no  man  can  do  more  than  the  law  demands.  The 
Romanists  regard  the  law  as  a  series  of  specific  enactments.  Besides 
these  commands  which  bind  all  men  there  are  certain  things  which 
they  call  precepts,  which  are  not  thus  universally  binding,  such  as 
celibacy,  poverty,  and  monastic  obedience,  and  the  like.  These  go 
beyond  the  law.  By  adding  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  commands  of 
God,  the  observance  of  these  precepts,  a  man  may  do  more  than 
is  required  of  him,  and  thus  acquire  an  amount  of  merit  greater 
than  he  needs  for  himself,  and  which  in  virtue  of  the  communion 

1  Ephtvla,  CLXvii.  iv.  15;  Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  vol.  ii.  p.  897,  a. 

2  See  Ciiemnitz,  Exainen  ConciUi  Trifkntini,  I.  De  Justificalione,  edit.  Frankfort,  1674, 
p.  165,  f.  Be  Bonis  Oferibus,  qu.  3,  p.  205,  a.  Gerliard,  Loci  Theoloyici,  xi.  x.  42-45,  v., 
pp.  21-24     Quenstodt,  Thejloyia,  P.  ii.  cap.  ii.  §  2,  q.  3,  edit  Leipzig,  1715,  p.  967. 


186  PART  n.   Ch.  vm.  — sin. 

of  saints,  belongs  to  the  Church,  and  may  be  dispensed,  through 
the  power  of  tlie  keys,  for  the  benefit  of  others.  The  whole  foun- 
dation of  this  theory  is  of  course  removed,  if  the  law  demands 
absolute  perfection,  to  which,  even  according  to  their  doctrine,  no 
man  ever  attains  in  this  life.  He  always  is  burdened  with  venial 
sins,  which  God  in  mercy  does  not  impute  as  real  sins,  but  which 
nevertheless  are  imperfections. 

Sin  not  Confined  to  Acts  of  the  Will. 

4.  Another  conclusion  drawn  from  the  Scriptural  doctrine  as  to 
the  extent  of  the  divine  law,  as  held  by  all  Augustinians,  is  that  sin 
is  not  confined  to  acts  of  the  will.  There  are  three  senses  in  which 
the  word  voluntary  is  used  in  connection  with  this  subject.  The 
first  and  strictest  sense  makes  nothing  an  act  of  the  will  but  an  act 
of  deliberate  self-determination,  something  that  is  performed,  sciente 
et  volente.  Secondly,  all  spontaneous,  impulsive  exercises  of  the 
feelings  and  affections  are  in  a  sense  voluntary.  And,  thirdly, 
whatever  inheres  in  the  will  as  a  habit  or  disposition,  is  called 
voluntary  as  belonging  to  the  will.  The  doctrine  of  the  Romish 
Church  on  these  points,  as  shown  in  the  preceding  section,  is  a 
matter  of  dispute  among  Romanists  thfemselves.  The  majority  of 
the  schoolmen  and  of  the  Roman  theologians  deny  that  anything 
is  of  the  nature  of  sin,  but  voluntary  acts  in  the  first  sense  of  the 
word  voluntary  above  mentioned.  How  they  endeavour  to  reconcile 
tlie  doctrine  of  hereditary,  inherent  corruption,  or  original  sin,  with 
that  principle  has  already  been  stated.  Holding  that  principle, 
however,  they  strenuously  deny  that  mere  impulses,  the  motus 
primo  primi,  as  they  are  called,  of  evil  dispositions  are  of  the  nature 
of  sin.  To  this  doctrine  they  are  forced  by  their  view  of  baptism. 
In  that  ordinance,  according  to  their  theory,  everything  of  the 
nature  of  sin  is  removed.  But  concupiscence  with  its  motions 
remains.  These,  however,  if  not  deliberately  assented  to  and  in- 
dulged, are  not  sinful.  Whether  they  are  or  not,  of  course  depends 
on  the  extent  of  the  law.  Nothing  is  sinful  but  what  is  contrary 
to  the  divine  law.  If  that  law  demands  perfect  conformity  to  the 
image  of  God,  then  these  impulses  of  evil  are  clearly  sinful.  But 
if  the  law  takes  cognizance  only  of  deliberate  acts  they  are  not. 
The  Protestant  doctrine  which  pronounces  these  impulsive  acts  to 
be  of  the  nature  of  sin  is  confirmed  by  the  consciousness  of  the 
believer.  He  recognizes  as  evil  in  their  owu  nature  the  first  risings 
of  malice,  envy,  pi'ide,  or  cupidity.  He  knows  that  they  spring 
from  an  evil  or  imperfectly  sanctified  nature.    They  constitute  part 


§  7.]  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINE.  187 

of  the  burden  of  corruption  whicli  he  hopes  to  lay  down  in  the 
grave  ;  and  he  knows  tliat  as  he  shall  be  free  from  them  in  heaven, 
they  never  disturbed  the  perfectly  holy  soul  of  his  blessed  Lord,  to 
whose  image  he  is  even  now  bound  to  be  conformed. 

5.  It  follows  from  the  principle  that  the  law  condemns  all  want  of 
conformity  to  the  nature  of  God,  that  it  condemns  evil  dispositions 
or  habits,  as  well  as  all  voluntary  sins,  whether  deliberate  or  impul- 
sive. According  to  the  Bible  and  the  dictates  of  conscience  there 
is  a  sinfulness  as  well  as  sins;  there  is  such  a  thing  as  character  as 
distinguished  from  transient  acts  by  which  it  is  revealed  ;  that  is, 
a  sinful  state,  abiding,  inherent,  immanent  forms  of  evil,  which  are 
truly  and  properly  of  the  nature  of  sin.  All  sin,  therefore,  is  not 
an  agency,  activity,  or  act ;  it  may  be  and  is  also  a  condition  or 
state  of  the  mind.  This  distinction  between  habitual  and  actual 
sin  has  been  recognized  and  admitted  in  the  Church  from  the 
beginning.  Our  Lord  teaches  us  this  distinction  when  He  speaks 
of  an  evil  heart  as  distinguished  from  evil  exercises,  which  are  as 
distinct  as  a  tree  and  its  fruits.  The  Apostle  speaks  of  sin  as  a  law, 
or  controlling  principle  regulating  or  determining  his  acts  even  in 
despite  of  his  better  nature.  He  says  sin  dwells  in  him.  He  com- 
plains of  it  as  a  burden  too  heavy  to  be  borne,  from  which  he  groans 
to  be  delivered.  And  his  experience  in  this  matter  is  the  experience 
(we  do  not  say  the  theory)  of  all  the  people  of  God.  They  know 
there  is  more  in  them  of  the  nature  of  sin  than  mere  acts  and  exer- 
cises ;  that  their  heart  is  not  rio;ht  in  the  sio;ht  of  God ;  that  the 
fountain  from  which  the  waters  flow  is  itself  bitter ;  that  the  tree 
is  known  by  its  fruits. 

Sin  is  Want  of  Conformity  to  the  Law  of  Crod. 

Protestants  teach  not  only  that  sin  is  a  specific  evil,  that  it  has 
relation  to  law,  that  that  law  is  the  nature  and  will  of  God,  and 
that  it  takes  cognizance  of  and  condemns  all  forms  and  degrees  of 
moral  evil  or  want  of  moral  excellence,  but  also  that  the  formal  na- 
ture of  sin  is  the  want  of  conformity  to  the  divine  law  or  standard  of 
.excellence.  This  want  of  conformity  is  not  a  mere  negation,  such 
las  may  be  predicated  of  a  stone  or  of  a  brute,  of  whom  it  may  be 
said  they  are  not  conformed  to  the  image  of  God.  The  want  of 
conformity  to  the  divine  law  which  constitutes  sin  is  the  want  of 
[congeniality  of  one  moral  nature  with  another;  of  the  dependent 
and  created  nature  with  the  infinitely  holy  nature,  whicli  of  neces- 
sity is  not  only  the  sum  but  the  standard  of  all  excellence.  Herein 
is  sin  that  we  are  not  like   God.     As  the  opposite   of  reason  is 


188  PART  11.  ch.  vni.  — sm. 

unreason,  the  opposite  of  wisdom  is  folly,  and  the  opposite  of  good 
is  evil ;  so  the  opposite  of  the  divine  holiness  is  sin.  It  matters 
not  of  what  exercises  or  states  in  the  nature  of  a  moral  beino;  this 
opposition  may  be  predicated  ;  of  deliberate  acts,  of  merely  impulsive 
acts,  or  of  dispositions  or  habits  ;  if  opposed  to  the  divine  nature  it 
is  sin,  hateful  in  itself  and  worthy  of  condemnation.  There  is  a 
positive  element,  therefore,  in  all  sin.  That  is,  it  is  not  merely  the 
privation  of  righteousness,  but  it  is  positive  unrighteousness.  Be- 
cause the  absence  of  the  one  in  a  moral  nature  is  the  other.  The 
want  of  congeniality  with  God  is  alienation  from  God,  and,  as  the 
Scriptures  say,  enmity  towards  Him.  The  Protestant  symbols  and 
theologians,  therefore,  in  defining  sin,  not  merely  as  selfishness  or 
the  love  of  the  creature  or  the  love  of  the  world,  which  are  only 
modes  of  its  manifestation,  but  as  the  want  of  conformity  of  an  act, 
habit,  or  state  of  a  man  with  the  divine  law,  which  is  the  revelation 
of  the  divine  nature,  have  in  their  support  both  reason  and  con- 
science. This  doctrine  of  the  nature  of  sin  is  fully  sustained  by 
the  authority  of  Scripture.  The  Apostle  John  says  that  all  want 
of  conformity  to  law  is  sin.  The  two  ideas  d^xaprta  and  avofila 
are  coextensive.  Whatever  is  the  one,  is  the  other.  It  seems  that 
some  in  the  Apostle's  day  were  disposed  to  limit  the  demands  of 
the  divine  law,  and  regard  certain  things  not  specifically  forbidden 
as  lawful.  In  opposition  to  this,  the  Apostle  tells  them  that  every- 
thing evil  is  unlawful ;  for  the  very  nature  of  evil  is  want  of  con- 
formity to  law  :  ttSs  o  ttolwv  rrjv  dfiapTLav  koI  tt/v  avojjiiav  Trotei,  he  who 
commits  sin  commits  anomia,  for  rj  a/xaprCa  ia-rlv  rj  dro/i,ia,  for  all  want 
of  conformity  to  law  is  sin.  (1  John  iii.  4.)  With  this  agree  also 
all  the  representations  of  Scripture.  The  words  there  used  for  sin 
in  all  its  forms,  express  the  idea  of  non-conformity  to  a  standard. 
And  besides  this  the  Bible  everywhere  teaches  that  God  is  the 
source  and  standard  of  all  good.  His  favour  is  the  life  of  the  soul. 
Congeniality  with  Him,  conformity  to  his  will  and  nature,  is  the 
idea  and  perfection  of  all  excellence  ;  and  the  opposite  state,  the 
want  of  this  congeniality  and  conformity,  is  the  sum  and  essence  of 

all  evil. 

Sin  includes  Gruilt  and  Pollution. 

Sin  includes  guilt  and  pollution ;  the  one  expresses  its  relation  to 
the  justice,  the  other  to  the  holiness  of  God.  These  two  elements 
of  sin  are  revealed  in  the  conscience  of  every  siimer.  He  knows 
himself  to  be  amenable  to  the  justice  of  God  and  offensive  in  his 
holy  eyes.  He  is  to  himself  even,  hateful  and  degraded  and  self 
condemned.     There  are,  however,  two  things  included  in  guilt. 


§  7.]  PROTESTANT  DOCTEINE.  189 

The  one  we  express  by  the  words  criminality,  demerit,  and  blamewor- 
thiness ;  the  other  is  the  obligation  to  suffer  the  punishment  due  to 
our  offences.  These  are  evidently  distinct,  although  expressed  by 
the  same  word.  The  guilt  of  our  sins  is  said  to  have  been  laid  upon 
Christ,  that  is,  the  obligation  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  justice  on 
account  of  them.  But  He  did  not  assume  the  criminality,  the 
demerit,  or  blameworthiness  of  our  transgressions.  When  the 
believer  is  justified,  his  guilt,  but  not  his  demerit,  is  removed.  He 
remains  in  fact,  and  in  his  own  eyes,  the  same  unworthy,  hell- 
deserving  creature,  in  himself  considered,  that  he  was  before.  A 
man  condemned  at  a  human  tribunal  for  any  offence  against  the 
community,  when  he  has  endured  the  penalty  which  the  law  pre- 
scribes, is  no  less  unworthy,  his  demerit  as  much  exists  as  it  did 
from  the  beginning ;  but  his  liability  to  justice  or  obligation  to  the 
penalty  of  the  law,  in  other  words,  his  guilt  in  that  sense  of  the 
word,  is  removed.  It  would  be  unjust  to  punish  him  a  second  time 
for  that  offence.  This  distinction  theologians  are  accustomed  to 
express  by  the  terms  reatus  culpce  and  reatun  poence.  Culpa  is 
(strafwiirdiger  Zustand)  blameworthiness ;  and  reatus  culpce  is 
guilt  in  the  form  of  inherent  ill-desert.  Whereas  the  reatus  pcence 
is  the  debt  we  owe  to  justice.  That  guilt,  in  the  comprehensive 
sense  of  the  word,  and  pollution  enter  into  the  nature  of  sin,  or  are 
inseparable  from  it,  is  not  only  revealed  in  our  own  consciousness, 
but  is  everywhere  assumed  in  Scripture.  The  Bible  constantly 
declares  that  sin  and  all  sin,  everything  which  bears  its  nature,  is 
not  only  hateful  in  the  sight  of  a  holy  God,  but  is  the  object  of  his 
wrath  and  indignation,  the  just  ground  for  the  infliction  of  punish- 
ment. 

This  is  admitted,  and  cannot  be  denied.  The  only  question  is. 
What  is  necessary  in  order  to  the  sense  of  guilt  as  it  exists  in  the 
conscience  ?  Or,  What  is  required  to  constitute  anything  a  just 
ground  of  punishment  in  the  sight  of  God  ?  Is  it  sufficient  that  the 
thing  itself  should  be  sinful  ?  Or,  Is  it  necessary  that  it  should  be 
due  to  our  own  voluntary  act  ?  This  latter  ground  is  taken  not 
only  by  Pelagians,  and  by  all  who  define  sin  to  be  the  voluntary 
transgression  of  known  law,  but  also  by  many  who  hold  to  habitual, 
as  distinguished  from  actual  sin,  and  who  even  acknowledge  that 
men  are  born  in  sin.  They  still  insist  that  even  evil  innate,  inherent 
sin,  must  be  referrible  to  our  own  voluntary  agency,  or  it  cannot 
be  guilt  in  us.     But  this  is,  — 

1.  Contrary  to  our  own  consciousness.  The  existence  of  sin  in 
the  heart,  the  presence  of  evil  dispositions,  without  regard  to  their 


190  PART  II.     Ch.   VIIL  — sin. 

origin,  is  unavoidably  attended  by  a  sense  of  pollution  and  guilt. 
These  dispositions  being  evil  in  their  own  nature  must  include 
whatever  is  essential  to  that  nature.  And,  as  has  been  acknowl- 
edged, guilt  is  essential  to  the  nature  of  sin.  Nothing  is  sinful 
which  does  not  involve  guilt.  The  consciousness,  or  the  convic- 
tion of  sin,  must  therefore  include  the  conviction  of  guilt.  And 
consequently  if  we  are  convinced  from  the  declarations  of  Scripture 
and  from  the  state  of  our  mxture  that  we  are  born  in  sin  we  must 
be  convinced  that  guilt  attaches  to  innate  corruption  of  nature. 
Besides  this,  habitual  or  indwelling  sin  is  not  voluntary  in  tlie  sense 
of  being  designed  or  intended,  or  in  the  sense  of  being  under  the 
power  of  the  will,  and  yet  all  Christians  admit  that  such  indwelling 
sin  is  a  dreadful  load  of  guilt ;  a  load  more  burdensome  to  the 
heart  and  conscience  than  all  our  actual  transsressions. 

2.  The  principle  in  question  is  no  less  opposed  to  the  common 
judgments  of  men.  All  men  instinctively  judge  a  man  for  what 
he  is.  If  he  is  good  they  so  regard  him.  If  he  is  bad,  they  pro- 
nounce him  to  be  bad.  This  judgment  is  just  as  inevitable  or 
necessary  as  that  he  is  tall  or  short,  learned  or  unlearned.  The 
question  as  to  the  origin  of  the  man's  character  does  not  enter  into 
the  grounds  of  this  judgment.  If  born  good,  if  he  made  himself 
good,  or  if  he  received  his  goodness  as  a  gift  from  God,  does  not 
materially  affect  the  case.  He  is  good,  and  must  be  so  regarded 
and  treated.  In  like  manner  all  that  is  necessary  in  order  to 
justify  and  necessitate  the  judgment  that  a  man  is  bad  is  that  he 
should  be  so.  This  is  the  principle  on  which  we  judge  ourselves, 
and  on  which  men  universally  judge  each  other.  The  principle, 
therefore,  must  be  sound. 

3.  The  doctrine  that  sin  in  order  to  include  guilt  must  be  refer- 
rible  to  our  own  voluntary  action,  is  contrary  to  analogy.  It  is 
not  so  with  holiness.  Adam  was  created  holy.  His  holiness  as 
truly  constituted  his  character  as  though  it  had  been  self-acquired, 
and  had  it  been  retained,  it  would  have  continued  to  be,  and  so 
long  as  it  was  retained  it  was  an  object  of  complacency  and  the 
ground  of  reward  in  the  sight  of  God.  Habitual  grace,  as  it  is 
called,  or  the  new  principle  of  spiritual  life,  imparted  to  the  soul  in 
regeneration,  is  not  self-produced.  It  is  due  to  the  supernatural 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  nevertheless  it  constitutes  the  believer's 
character.  The  only  reason  wliy  it  is  not  meritorious,  is  that  it  is 
so  imperfect,  and  because  it  cannot  cancel  the  debt  we  already  owe 
to  the  justice  of  God.  The  soul,  however,  if  perfectly  sanctified 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  is  just  as  pure,  just  as  much  an  object  of  ap- 
probation and  delight  in  the  sight  of  God  as  an  unfallen  angel. 


§  7.]  PROTESTANT   DOCTRINE.  191 

4.  The  doctrine  in  question  contradicts  the  faith  of  the  Chiircli 
Universal.  A  distinction  must  be  made  between  the  faith  of 
the  Church  and  the  speculations  (or  even  the  doctrines)  of  theo- 
logians. These  are  often  divergent.  The  former  is  determined  by 
the  Scriptures  and  the  inward  teachings  of  the  Spirit ;  the  latter 
are  greatly  modified  by  the  current  philosophy  of  the  age  in  which 
those  theologians  lived,  and  by  the  idiosyncrasies  of  their  own 
minds.  During  the  Middle  Ages,  for  example,  the  speculations  of 
the  schoolmen  and  the  faith  of  the  Church,  had  very  little  in  com- 
mon. The  faith  of  the  Church  is  to  be  found  in  its  creeds,  prayers, 
and  forms  of  devotion  generally.  In  all  these,  through  every  age, 
the  Church  has  shown  that  she  regards  all  men  as  burdened  with 
original  sin,  as  belonging  to  a  polluted  and  guilty  race,  polluted  and 
guilty  from  the  first  moment  of  existence.  It  cannot  be  said  that 
the  Church  believed  original  sin  to  be  due  to  the  agency  of  each 
individual  man,  or  to  the  act  of  generic  humanity.  These  are 
thoughts  foreign  to  the  minds  of  common  believers.  The  convic- 
tion  therefore  must  have  existed  in  the  Church  always  and  every- 
where that  guilt  may  be  present  which  does  not  attach  to  the  vol- 
untary agency  of  the  guilty.  Infants  have  always  been  baptized 
for  the  remission  of  sin,  and  men  have  ever  been  regarded  by  the 
Church  as  born  in  sin. 

5.  The  explanation  given  of  the  undeniable  fact  of  innate  pollu- 
tion and  guilt,  by  those  who  admit  the  fiict,  and  yet  maintain  that 
this  original  sin  is  referrible  to  our  own  agency,  is  altogether  unsat- 
isfactory. That  explanation  is  that  we  acted  thousands  of  years 
before  we  existed,  that  is,  that  the  substance  which  constitutes  our 
individual  souls,  committed,  in  the  person  of  Adam,  the  sin  of  dis- 
obeying God  in  paradise.  This  explanation  of  course  presupposes 
the  fact  to  be  explained.  The  fact  remains  whatever  becomes  of 
the  explanation.     Men  are  born  in  a  state  of  guilt  and  pollution. 

^AIl  that  follows  from  the  rejection  of  the  explanation  is,  that  sin 
may  exist,  which  is  not  referrible  to  the  voluntary  agency  of  those 
in  whom  it  inheres.  This  consequence  is  far  easier  of  admission,  in 
the  judgment  of  the  vast  majority  of  men,  than  the  doctrine  that 
w^e  are  personally  chargeable  with  eating  the  forbidden  fruit  as  our 
own  act. 

6.  The  Bible  in  everywhere  teaching  that  men  are  born  in  sin, 
that  they  come  into  the  world  the  children  of  wrath,  does  thereby 
teach  that  there  can  be,  and  that  there  is  sin  (pollution  and  guilt) 
which  is  inherited  and  derived,  which  is  inherent  and  innate,  and 
therefore  not  referrible  to  our  own  agency.     As  the  Scriptures  no- 


192  PART  n.   Ch.  vin.  — sin. 

where  teach  that  we  actually  sinned  before  we  existed,  they  assert 
the  foct  which  enters  into  the  common  faith  of  the  Church,  that 
guilt  attaches  to  all  sin  however  tiiat  sin  originates. 

§  8.    The  Effects  of  Adam's  Sin  upon  his  Posterity. 

That  the  sin  of  Adam  injured  not  himself  only  but  also  all  de- 
scending from  him  by  ordinary  generation,  is  part  of  the  faith  of 
the  whole  Christian  world.  The  nature  and  extent  of  the  evil 
thus  entailed  upon  his  race,  and  the  ground  or  reason  of  the  de- 
scendants of  Adam  being  involved  in  the  evil  consequences  of  his 
transgression,  have  ever  been  matter  of  diversity  and  discussion. 
As  to  both  of  these  points  the  common  Augustinian  doctrine  is 
briefly  stated  in  the  Symbols  of  our  Church.  According  to  our 
standards,  "  the  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell  consists 
in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of  original  righteousness, 
and  the  corruption  of  his  whole  nature,  which  is  commonly  called 
original  sin,  together  with  all  actual  transgressions  which  proceed 
from  it."  This  corruption  of  nature  is  in  the  Confession  of  Faith 
declared  to  be  "  both  in  itself  and  in  all  motions  thereof,  truly  and 
properly  sin."  And  in  virtue  of  this  original  corruption  men  are 
utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good,  and 
wholly  inclined  to  all  evil.  As  to  the  ground  of  these  evils,  we 
are  taught  that  "  the  covenant  being  made  with  Adam  not  only  for 
himself,  but  for  his  posterity,  all  mankind  descending  from  him  by 
ordinary  generation,  sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first 
transgression."  Or,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  Confession,  "  Our  first 
parents,  being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of  their  sin  was 
imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature  were  con- 
veyed to  all  their  posterity,  descending  fi'om  them  by  ordinary  gen- 
eration." 

In  this  view  of  the  relation  of  mankind  to  Adam,  and  of  the 
consequences  of  his  apostasy,  the  three  leading  subjects  included, 
are  the  imputation  of  Adam's  first  sin  ;  the  corruption  of  nature 
derived  from  him  ;  and  the  inability  of  fallen  man  to  any  spiritual 
good. 

§  9.  Immediate  Imputation. 

It  being  admitted  that  the  race  of  man  participates  in  the  evil 
consequences  of  the  fall  of  our  first  parent,  that  fact  is  accounted 
for  on  different  theories. 

1.  That  which  is  adopted  by  Protestants  generally,  as  well 
Lutherans  as  Reformed,  and  also  by  the  great  body  of  the  Latin 
Church  is,  that  in  virtue  of  the  union,  federal  and  natural,  between 


I 


§9.]  IMMEDIATE  IMPUTATION.  193 

Adam  and  his  posterity,  his  sin,  although  not  their  act,  is  so  im- 
puted to  them  that  it  is  the  judicial  ground  of  the  penalty  threat- 
ened against  him  coming  also  upon  them.  This  is  the  doctrine  of 
immediate  imputation. 

2.  Others,  while  they  admit  that  a  corrupt  nature  is  dei'ived  from 
Adam  by  all  his  ordinary  posterity,  yet  deny,  first,  that  this  cor- 
ruption or  spiritual  death  is  a  penal  infliction  for  his  sin  ;  and  sec- 
ond, that  there  is  any  imputation  to  Adam's  descendants  of  the 
guilt  of  his  first  sin.  All  that  is  really  imputed  to  them  is  their 
own  inherent,  hereditary  depravity.  This  is  the  doctrine  of 
mediate  imputation. 

3.  Others  discard  entirely  the  idea  of  imputation,  so  far  as 
Adam's  sin, is  concerned,  and  refer  the  hereditary  corruption  of 
men  to  the  general  law  of  propagation.  Throughout  the  vegeta- 
ble and  animal  kingdoms,  like  begets  like.  Man  is  not  an  excep- 
tion to  that  law.  Adam  havino;  lost  his  original  righteousness  and 
corrupted  his  nature  by  his  apostasy,  transmits  that  despoiled  and 
deteriorated  nature  to  all  his  descendants.  To  what  extent  man's 
nature  is  injured  by  the  fall,  is  left  undetermined  by  this  theory. 
According  to  some  it  is  so  deteriorated  as  to  be  in  tlie  true  Scriptural 
sense  of  the  term,  spiritually  dead,  while  according  to  others,  the  in- 
jury is  little  if  anything  more  than  a  physical  infirmity,  an  impaired 
constitution  which  the  first  parent  has  transmitted  to  his  children. 

4.  Others  again  adopt  the  realistic  theory,  and  teach  that  as 
generic  humanity  existed  whole  and  entire  in  the  persons  of  Adam 
and  Eve,  their  sin  was  the  sin  of  the  entire  race.  The  same 
numerical  rational  and  voluntary  substance  which  acted  in  our  first 
parents,  having  been  communicated  to  us,  their  act  was  as  truly 
and  properly  our  act,  being  the  act  of  our  reason  and  will,  as  it 
was  their  act.  It  is  imputed  to  us  therefore  not  as  his,  but  as  our 
own.  We  literally  sinned  in  Adam,  and  consequently  the  guilt  of 
that  sin  is  our  personal  guilt  and  the  consequent  corniption  of  na- 
ture is  the  effect  of  our  own  voluntary  act. 

5.  Others,  finally,  deny  any  causal  relation,  whether  logical  or 
natural,  whether  judicial  or  physical,  between  the  sin  of  Adam 
and  the  sinfulness  of  his  race.  Some  who  take  this  ground  say 
that  it  was  a  divine  constitution,  that,  if  Adam  sinned,  all  men 
should  sin.  The  one  event  was  connected  with  the  other  only  in 
the  divine  purpose.  Others  say  that  there  is  no  necessity  to  ac- 
count for  the  fact  that  all  men  are  sinners,  further  than  by  referring 
to  their  liberty  of  will.  Adam  sinned,  and  other  men  sin.  That 
is  all.     The  one  fact  is  as  easily  accounted  for  as  the  other. 

VOL.   II.  13 


194  PART  n.   Ch.  vm.  — sin. 

Statement  of  the  Doctrine  of  Immediate  Imputation. 
The  first  of  the  above  mentioned  doctrines  is  that  presented  in 
the  Symbols  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches,  and  by  the 
great  body  of  the  theologians  of  those  great  historical  branches  of 
the  Protestant  community.^  What  that  doctrine  is  may  be  stated 
in  few  words.  To  impute  is  simply  to  attribute  to,  as  we  are  said 
to  impute  good  or  bad  motives  to  any  one.  In  the  juridical  and 
theological  sense  of  the  word,  to  impute  is  to  attribute  anything  to 
a  person  or  persons,  upon  adequate  grounds,  as  the  judicial  or 
meritorious  reason  of  reward  or  punishment,  i.  e.,  of  the  bestow- 
ment  of  good  or  the  infliction  of  evil.  The  most  elaborate  discus- 
sion of  the  Hebrew  word  2.wn  and  the  Greek  XoyCtfliLaL^  used  in 
Scripture  in  relation  to  this  subject,  gives  nothing  beyond  the  sim- 
ple result  above  mentioned. 

1.  To  impute  is  to  reckon  to,  or  to  lay  to  one's  account.  So  far 
as  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  concerned,  it  makes  no  difference 
whether  the  thing  imputed  be  sin  or  righteousness  ;  whether  it  is 
our  own  personally,  or  the  sin  or  righteousness  of  another. 

2.  To  impute  sin,  in  Scriptural  and  theological  language,  is  to 
impute  the  guilt  of  sin.  And  by  guilt  is  meant  not  criminality  or 
moral  ill-desert,  or  demerit,  much  less  moral  pollution,  but  the 
judicial  obligation  to  satisfy  justice.  Hence  the  evil  consequent  on 
the  imputation  is  not  an  arbitrary  infliction  ;  not  merely  a  misfor- 
tune or  calamity ;  not  a  chastisement  in  the  proper  sense  of  that 
word,  but  a  punishment,  i.  e.,  an  evil  inflicted  in  execution  of  the 
penalty  of  law  and  for  the  satisfaction  of  justice. 

3.  A  third  remark  in  elucidation  of  what  is  meant  by  the  impu- 
tation of  Adam's  sin  is,  that  by  all  theologians.  Reformed  and 
Lutheran,  it  is  admitted,  that  in  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to 
us,  of  our  sins  to  Christ,  and  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  believers, 
the  nature  of  imputation  is  the  same,  so  that  the  one  case  illustrates 
the  others.  When  it  is  said  that  our  sins  were  imputed  to  Christ, 
or  that  He  bore  our  sins,  it  is  not  meant  that  he  actually  committed 
our  sins,  or  that  He  was  morally  criminal  on  account  of  them,  or 
that  the  demerit  of  them  rested  upon  Him.     All  that  is  meant  is 

1  As  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  an  influential  party  in  the  Komish  Church  held, 
after  some  of  the  schoolmen,  that  original  sin  consists  solely  in  the  imputation  of  Adam's  first 
sin,  and  as  the  Confessions  of  the  Reformers  were  designed  not  only  as  an  exhibition  of 
the  truth  but  as  a  protest  against  the  errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  it  will  be  observed  that 
the  Protestants  frequently  assert  that  original  sin  is  not  only  tiie  imputation  of  Adam's  sin 
hut  also  hereditary  corruption  of  nature ;  and  the  Reformed  theologians  often  made  the  lat- 
ter more  prominent  than  the  former,  because  the  one  was  admitted  by  their  adversaries,  but 
the  other  denied. 


I 


§  9.]  IMMEDIATE  IMPUTATION.  195 

that  He  assumed,  in  the  language  of  the  older  theologians,  "  our 
law-place."  He  undertook  to  answer  the  demands  of  justice  for  the 
sins  of  men,  or,  as  it  is  expressed  by  the  Apostle,  to  be  made  a 
curse  for  them.  In  like  manner,  when  it  is  said  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  imputed  to  believers,  it  does  not  mean  that  they 
wrought  out  that  righteousness,  that  they  were  the  agents  of  the 
acts  of  Christ  in  obeying  the  law  ;  nor  that  the  merit  of  his  righ- 
teousness is  their  personal  merit ;  nor  that  it  constitutes  their  moral 
character ;  it  simply  means  that  his  righteousness,  having  been 
wrought  out  by  Christ  for  the  benefit  of  his  people,  in  their  name, 
by  Him  as  their  representative,  it  is  laid  to  their  account,  so 
that  God  can  be  just  in  justifying  the  ungodly.  Much  of  the 
difficulty  on  this  subject  arises  from  the  ambiguity  of  language. 
The  words  righteous  and  unrighteous  have  two  distinct  mean- 
ings. Sometimes  they  express  moral  character.  A  righteous 
man  is  an  upright  or  good  man.  At  other  times,  these  words 
do  not  express  moral  character,  but  simply  relation  to  justice.  In 
this  sense  a  righteous  man  is  one  with  regard  to  whom  the  demands 
of  justice  are  satisfied.  He  may  be  personally  unrighteous  (or 
ungodly)  and  legally  righteous.  If  this  were  not  so,  no  sinner 
could  be  saved.  There  is  not  a  believer  on  earth  who  does  not 
feel  and  acknowledge  himself  to  be  personally  unrighteous,  ill-de- 
serving, meriting  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God.  Nevertheless  he 
rejoices  in  the  assurance  that  the  infinitely  meritorious  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  his  full  atonement  for  all  sin,  constitutes  Him  legally, 
not  morally,  righteous  in  the  sight  of  divine  justice.  When, 
therefore,  God  pronounces  the  unrighteous  to  be  righteous,  He 
does  not  declare  them  to  be  what  they  are  not.  He  simply  de- 
clares that  their  debt  to  justice  has  been  paid  by  another.  And 
when  it  is  said  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  his  posterity,  it 
is  not  meant  that  they  committed  his  sin,  or  were  the  agents  of  his 
act,  nor  is  it  meant  that  they  are  morally  criminal  for  his  trans- 
gression ;  that  it  is  for  them  the  ground  of  remorse  and  self- 
reproach  ;  but  simply  that  in  virtue  of  the  union  between  him 
and  his  descendants,  his  sin  is  the  judicial  ground  of  the  condem- 
nation of  his  race,  precisely  as  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the 
judicial  ground  of  the  justification  of  his  people.  So  much  for 
the  statement  of  the  question. 

It  is  no  less  a  doctrine  of  Scripture  than  a  fact  of  experience 
that  mankind  are  a  fallen  race.  Men  universally,  under  all  the 
circumstances  of  their  being  in  this  world,  are  sinful,  and  exposed 
to  innumerable  evils.     Many  of  these,  and  that  in  many  instances, 


196  PART  n.  ch.  vni.  — sin. 

the  most  appalling,  come  upon  the  children  of  men  in  early  infancy, 
anterior  to  any  possible  transgressions  of  their  own.  Tliis  is  a  fact 
which  cannot  be  denied ;  and  for  which  the  human  mind  has  tortured 
itself  to  find  a  solution.  The  Scriptural  solution  of  this  fearful 
problem  is,  that  God  constituted  our  first  parent  the  federal  head 
and  representative  of  his  race,  and  placed  him  on  probation  not 
only  for  himself,  but  also  for  all  his  posterity.  Had  he  retained 
his  integrity,  he  and  all  his  descendants  would  have  been  con- 
firmed in  a  state  of  holiness  and  happiness  forever.  As  he  fell 
from  the  estate  in  which  he  was  created,  they  fell  with  him  in  his 
first  transgression,  so  that  the  penalty  of  that  sin  came  upon  them 
as  well  as  upon  him.  Men  therefore  stood  their  probation  in 
Adam.  As  he  sinned,  his  posterity  come  into  the  world  in  a  state 
of  sin  and  condemnation.  They  are  by  nature  the  children  of 
wrath.  The  evils  which  they  suffer  are  not  arbitrary  impositions, 
nor  simply  the  natural  consequences  of  his  apostasy,  but  judicial 
inflictions.  The  loss  of  original  righteousness,  and  death  spiritual 
and  temporal  under  which  they  commence  their  existence,  are  the 
penalty  of  Adam's  first  sin.  We  do  not  say  that  this  solution  of 
the  problem  of  man's  sinfulness  and  misery,  is  without  its  difficul- 
ties ;  for  the  ways  of  God  are  past  finding  out.  But  it  may  be 
confidently  asserted,  first,  that  it  is  the  Scriptural  solution  of  that 
problem  ;  and  secondly,  that  it  is  far  more  satisfactory  to  the  rea- 
son, the  heart,  and  the  conscience,  than  any  other  solution  which 
the  ingenuity  of  man  has  ever  suggested.  This  is  proved  by  its 
general  acceptance  in  the  Christian  Church. 

The  Ground  of  the  Imputation  of  Adam's  Sin. 

The  ground  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  or  the  reason  why 
the  penalty  of  his  sin  has  come  upon  all  his  posterity,  according  to 
the  doctrine  above  stated,  is  the  union  between  us  and  Adam. 
There  could  of  course  be  no  propriety  in  imputing  the  sin  of  one 
man  to  another  unless  there  were  some  connection  between  them 
to  explain  and  justify  such  imputation.  The  Scriptures  never 
speak  of  the  imputation  of  the  sins  of  angels  either  to  men  or  to 
Christ,  or  of  his  righteousness  to  them  ;  because  there  is  no  such 
relation  between  men  and  angels,  or  between  angels  and  Christ,  as 
to  involve  the  one  in  the  judicial  consequences  of  the  sin  or  right- 
eousness of  the  other.  The  union  between  Adam  and  his  poster- 
ity which  is  the  ground  of  the  imputation  of  his  sin  to  them,  is 
both  natural  and  federal.  He  was  their  natural  head.  Such  is 
the  relation  between  parent  and  child,   not  only  in  the  case  of 


§9.]  IMMEDIATE  IMPUTATION.  197 

Adam  and  his  descendants,  but  in  all  other  cases,  that  the  charac- 
ter and  conduct  of  the  one,  of  necessity  to  a  greater  or  less  degree 
affect  the  other.  No  fact  in  history  is  plainer  than  that  children 
bear  the  iniquities  of  their  fathers.  They  suffer  for  their  sins. 
There  must  be  a  reason  for  this ;  and  a  reason  founded  in  the  very 
constitution  of  our  nature.  But  there  was  something  peculiar  in 
the  case  of  Adam.  Over  and  beyond  this  natural  relation  which 
exists  between  a  man  and  his  posterity,  there  was  a  special  divine 
constitution  by  which  he  was  appointed  the  head  and  representative 
of  his  whole  race. 

Adam  the  Federal  Head  of  Ms  Race. 

1.  The  first  argument,  therefore,  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of 
imputation  is  that  the  Scriptures  present  Adam  as  not  only  the 
natural,  but  also  the  federal  head  of  his  posterity.  This  is  plain, 
as  already  remarked,  from  the  narrative  given  in  Genesis.  Every- 
thing there  said  to  Adam  was  said  to  him  in  his  representative 
capacity.  The  promise  of  life  was  for  him  and  for  his  seed  after 
him.  The  dominion  with  which  he  was  invested,  belonged  to  his 
posterity  as  well  as  to  himself.  All  the  evils  threatened  against 
him  in  case  of  transgression,  included  them,  and  have  in  fact  come 
upon  them.  They  are  mortal  ;  they  have  to  earn  their  bread  by 
the  sweat  of  their  brows  ;  they  are  subject  to  all  the  inconvenien- 
ces and  sufferings  arising  from  the  banishment  of  our  first  parents 
from  paradise  and  from  the  curse  pronounced  for  man's  sake  upon 
the  earth.  They  no  less  obviously  are  born  into  the  world  desti- 
tute of  original  righteousness  and  subject  to  spiritual  death.  The 
full  penalty,  therefore,  threatened  against  Adam,  has  been  inflicted 
upon  them.  It  was  death  with  the  promise  of  redemption.  Now 
that  these  evils  are  penal  in  our  case  as  well  as  in  his,  is  plain,  be- 
cause punishment  is  suffering  inflicted  in  execution  of  a  threaten- 
ing, and  for  the  satisfaction  of  justice.  It  matters  not  what  that 
suffering  may  be.  Its  character  as  penalty  depends  not  on  its  na- 
ture, but  upon  the  design  of  its  infliction.  One  man,  as  before 
remarked,  may  be  shut  up  in  a  prison  to  protect  him  from  popular 
violence  ;  another,  in  execution  of  a  legal  sentence.  In  one  case 
the  imprisonment  is  a  favour,  in  the  other,  it  is  a  punishment.  As 
therefore,  the  evils  which  men  suffer  on  account  of  the  sin  of 
Adam,  are  inflicted  in  execution  of  the  penalty  threatened  against 
him,  they  are  as  truly  penal  in  our  case  as  they  were  in  his ;  and 
he  was  consequently  treated  as  the  federal  head  and  representa- 
tive of  his  race.     Besides  the  plain  assumption  of  the  truth  of  this 


198  PART  n.  ch.  vm.  —  sm. 

federal  relation,  it  is  expressly  asserted  in  the  Word  of  God.  The 
parallel  drawn  by  the  Apostle  between  Adam  and  Christ  relates 
precisely  to  this  point.  Adam  was  the  type  of  Him  who  was  to 
come,  because  as  the  one  was  the  representative  of  his  race,  so  the 
other  is  the  representative  of  his  people.  And  the  consequences 
of  the  relation  are  shown  to  be  in  like  manner  analogous.  It  was 
because  Adam  was  the  representative  of  his  race,  that  his  sin  is  the 
judicial  ground  of  their  condemnation  ;  and  it  is  because  Christ  is 
the  representative  of  his  people,  that  his  righteousness  is  the  judi- 
cial ground  of  the  justification  of  believers. 

The  Representative  Principle  in  the  Scriptures. 

2.  This  representative  principle  pervades  the  whole  Scriptures. 
The  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity  is  not  an  isolated 
fact.  It  is  only  an  illustration  of  a  general  principle  which  charac- 
terizes the  dispensations  of  God  from  the  beginning  of  the  world. 
God  declared  himself  to  Moses  to  be,  "  The  Lord,  the  Lord  God, 
merciful  and  gracious,  long-suffering,  and  abundant  in  goodness  and 
truth,  keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity  and  transgres- 
sion, and  sin,  and  that  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty  ;  visiting  the 
iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children,  and  upon  the  children's  chil- 
dren unto  the  third  and  to  the  fourth  generation."  (Ex.  xxxiv.  6,  7.) 
Jeremiah  says :  "  Thou  showest  loving-kindness  unto  thousands, 
and  recompensest  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  into  tlie  bosom  of 
their  children  after  them.  The  Great,  the  Mighty  God,  the  Lord 
of  Hosts,  is  his  name."  (Jer.  xxxii.  18.)  The  curse  pronounced 
on  Canaan  fell  upon  his  posterity.  Esau's  selling  his  birthright, 
shut  out  his  descendants  from  the  covenant  of  promise.  The  chil- 
dren of  Moab  and  Ammon  were  excluded  from  tlie  congregation 
of  the  Lord  forever,  because  their  ancestors  opposed  the  Israelites 
when  they  came  out  of  Egypt.  In  the  case  of  Dathan  and  Abiram, 
as  in  that  of  Achan,  "  their  wives,  and  their  sons,  and  their  little 
children  "  perished  for  the  sins  of  their  parents.  God  said  to  Eli, 
that  the  iniquity  of  his  house  should  not  be  purged  wnth  sacrifice 
and  offering  forever.  To  David  it  was  said,  "  The  sword  shall 
never  depart  from  thy  house  ;  because  thou  hast  despised  me,  and 
hast  taken  the  wife  of  Uriah  the  Hlttite  to  be  thy  wife."  To  the 
disobedient  Gehazi  it  was  said :  "  The  leprosy  of  Naaman  shall 
cleave  unto  thee  and  unto  thy  seed  forever."  The  sin  of  Jere- 
boam  and  of  the  men  of  his  generation  determined  the  destiny  of 
the  ten  tribes  for  all  time.  The  imprecation  of  the  Jews,  when 
they  demanded  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  "  His  blood  be  on  us  and 


§9.]  IMMEDIATE   IMPUTATION.  199 

on  our  children,"  still  weighs  down  the  scattered  people  of  Israel. 
Our  Lord  himself  said  to  the  Jews  of  his  generation  that  they 
built  the  sepulchres  of  the  prophets  whom  their  fathers  had  slain, 
and  thus  acknowledged  themselves  to  be  the  children  of  murderers, 
and  that  therefore  the  blood  of  those  prophets  should  be  required 
at  their  hands.  This  principle  runs  through  the  whole  Scriptures. 
When  God  entered  into  covenant  with  Abraham,  it  was  not  for 
himself  only  but  also  for  his  posterity.  They  were  bound  by  all 
the  stipulations  of  that  covenant.  They  shared  its  promises  and 
its  threatenings,  and  in  hundreds  of  cases  the  penalty  of  disobe- 
dience came  upon  those  who  had  no  personal  part  in  the  transgres- 
sions. Cliildren  suffered  equally  with  adults  in  the  judgments, 
whether  famine,  pestilence,  or  war,  which  came  upon  the  people 
for  their  sins.  In  like  manner,  when  God  renewed  and  enlarged 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  at  Mount  Sinai,  it  was  made  with  the 
adults  of  that  generation  as  representing  their  descendants  to  the 
remotest  generations.  And  the  Jews  to  this  day  are  suffering  the 
penalty  of  the  sins  of  their  fathers  for  their  rejection  of  Him  of 
whom  Moses  and  the  prophets  spoke.  The  whole  plan  of  redemp- 
tion rests  on  this  same  principle.  Christ  is  the  representative  of 
his  people,  and  on  this  ground  their  sins  are  imputed  to  Him  and 
his  righteousness  to  them.  In  like  manner,  in  the  baptismal  cov- 
enant, the  parent  acts  for  the  child,  and  binds  him  without  the 
child's  consent,  and  the  destiny  of  the  child  is,  as  a  general  rule, 
suspended  on  the  fidelity  of  the  parent.  No  man  who  believes 
the  Bible,  can  shut  his  eyes  to  the  fact  that  it  everywhere  recog- 
nizes the  representative  character  of  parents,  and  that  the  dispen- 
sations of  God  have  from  the  beginning  been  founded  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  children  bear  the  iniquities  of  their  fathers.  This  is  one 
of  the  reasons  which  infidels  assign  for  rejecting  the  divine  origin 
of  the  Scriptures.  But  infidelity  furnishes  no  relief.  History  is 
as  full  of  this  doctrine  as  the  Bible  is.  The  punishment  of  the 
felon  involves  his  family  in  his  disgrace  and  misery.  The  spend- 
thrift and  drunkard  entail  poverty  and  wretchedness  upon  all  con- 
nected with  them.  There  is  no  nation  now  existing  on  the  face  of 
the  earth,  whose  condition  for  weal  or  woe  is  not  largely  detei'- 
mined  by  the  character  and  conduct  of  their  ancestors.  If,  unable 
to  solve  the  mysteries  of  Providence,  we  plunge  into  Atheism,  we 
only  increase  a  thousand  fold  the  darkness  by  which  we  are  sur- 
rounded. It  is  easier  to  believe  that  all  things  are  guided  by  infin- 
ite reason  and  goodness,  and  are  certain  to  result  in  the  hio-hest 
glory  of  God,  and  in  the  highest  blessedness  of  the  universe,  than 


200  PART  n.  ch.  vin.  —  sm. 

to  believe  that  this  vast  aggregate  of  sin  and  misery  is  the  working 
of  blind  force  without  purpose  and  without  end. 

If  the  fact  be  admitted  that  we  bear  the  consequences  of  Adam's 
sin,  and  that  children  suffer  for  the  iniquities  of  their  fathers,  it 
may  be  said  that  this  is  not  to  be  referred  to  the  justice  of  God,  but 
to  the  undesigned  working  of  a  general  law,  which  in  despite  of 
incidental  evil,  is  on  the  whole  beneficent.  The  difficulty  on  that 
assumption  instead  of  being  lessened,  is  only  increased.  On  either 
theory  the  nature  and  the  degree  of  suffering  are  the  same.  The 
innocence  of  the  sufferers  is  the  same.  The  only  difference  relates 
to  the  question,  Why  they  suffer  for  offences  of  which  they  are  not 
personally  guilty  ?  The  Bible  says  these  sufferings  are  judicial ; 
they  are  inflicted  as  punishment  for  the  support  of  law.  Others 
say,  they  are  merely  natural  consequences,  or  arbitrary  inflictions 
of  a  sovereign.  If  a  king  should  put  the  children  of  a  rebel  to 
death,  would  it  relieve  his  conduct  from  reproach  to  say  that  it  was 
an  act  of  arbitrary  sovereignty  ?  If  the  prevention  of  crime  be  one 
important  end  of  punishment  (although  not  its  primary  end), 
would  it  not  be  a  relief  to  say,  that  the  death  of  the  children  was 
designed  to  prevent  other  parents  from  rebelling  ?  That  the 
execution  of  the  children  of  a  criminal  by  a  human  sovereign  would 
be  a  cruel  and  unjust  punishment,  may  be  admitted,  while  it  is, 
and  must  be  denied,  that  it  is  unjust  in  God  that  He  should  visit 
the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon  their  children.  In  the  first  place 
no  human  sovereign  has  the  right  over  his  subjects  which  belongs 
to  God  over  his  creatures  as  their  Creator.  And  in  the  second 
place,  no  human  sovereign  has  the  power  and  wisdom  to  secure 
the  highest  good  from  the  penalties  which  he  attaches  to  the  viola- 
tions of  law.  We  cannot  infer  that  because  a  course  of  action  would 
be  wrong  in  man,  therefore  it  must  be  unjust  in  God.  No  man 
could  rightfully  send  pestilence  or  famine  through  a  land,  but  God 
does  send  such  visitations  not  only  righteously,  but  to  the  mani- 
festation of  his  own  glory  and  to  the  good  of  his  creatures. 

The  same  Principle  involved  in  other  Doctrines. 
That  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  his  posterity  is  proved  not 
only  (1.)  From  the  fact  that  he  was  their  natural  head  and  rep- 
resentative ;  and  (2.)  From  the  fact  that  this  principle  of  repre- 
sentation pervades  the  Scriptures  ;  and  (3.)  From  the  fact  that  it 
is  the  ground  on  which  the  providence  of  God  is  administered  ; 
and  (4.)  From  the  fact  that  evils  consequent  on  the  apostasy  of 
Adam  are  expressly  declared  in  Scripture  to  be  penal  inflictions ; 


§9.]  IMMEDIATE  IMPUTATION.  201 

but  also  (5.)  From  the  fact  that  the  principle  of  imputation  is  in- 
volved in  other  great  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  The  assumption  that 
one  man  cannot  righteously,  under  the  government  of  God,  be 
punished  for  the  sins  of  another,  is  not  only  contrary,  as  we  have 
seen  to  the  express  declarations  of  Scripture  and  to  the  administra- 
tion of  the  divine  government  from  the  beginning,  but  it  is  subver- 
sive of  the  doctrines  of  atonement  and  justification.  The  idea  of 
the  transfer  of  guilt  or  of  vicarious  punishment  lies  at  the  founda- 
tion of  all  the  expiatory  offerings  under  the  Old  Testament,  and 
of  the  great  atonement  under  the  new  dispensation.  To  bear  sin, 
is  in  Scriptural  language  to  bear  the  penalty  of  sin.  The  victim 
bore  the  sin  of  the  offerer.  Hands  were  imposed  upon  the  head 
of  the  animal  about  to  be  slaughtered,  to  express  the  transfer  of 
guilt.  That  animal  must  be  free  from  all  defect  or  blemish  to 
make  it  the  more  apparent  that  its  blood  was  shed  not  for  its  own 
deficiencies  but  for  the  sin  of  another.  All  this  was  symbolical  and 
typical.  There  could  be  no  real  transfer  of  guilt  made  to  an  irra- 
tional animal,  and  no  real  atonement  made  by  its  blood.  But  these 
services  were  significant.  They  were  intended  to  teach  these 
great  truths:  (1.)  That  the  penalty  of  sin  was  death.  (2.)  That 
sin  could  not  be  pardoned  without  an  atonement.  (3.)  That 
atonement  consists  in  vicarious  punishment.  The  innocent  takes 
the  place  of  the  guilty  and  bears  the  penalty  in  his  stead.  This  is 
the  idea  attached  to  expiatory  offerings  in  all  ages  and  among  all 
nations.  This  is  the  idea  inculcated  in  every  part  of  the  Bible. 
And  this  is  what  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning  the  atonement 
of  Christ.  He  bore  our  sins  ;  He  was  made  a  curse  for  us ;  He 
suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  our  stead.  All  this  proceeds  on 
the  ground  that  the  sins  of  one  man  can  be  justly,  on  some  ade- 
quate ground,  imputed  to  another.  In  justification  the  same  radi- 
cal idea  is  included.  Justification  is  not  a  subjective  change  in  the 
moral  state  of  the  sinner ;  it  is  not  mei'e  pardon  ;  it  is  not  simply 
pardon  and  restoration  to  favour,  as  when  a  rebel  is  forgiven  and 
restored  to  the  enjoyment  of  his  civil  rights.  It  is  a  declaration  that 
the  demands  of  justice  have  been  satisfied.  It  proceeds  on  the 
assumption  that  the  righteousness  which  the  law  requires  belongs 
either  personally  and  inherently,  or  by  imputation,  to  the  person 
who  is  justified,  or  declared  to  be  just.  There  is  a  logical  con- 
nection, therefore,  between  the  denial  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin,  and  the  denial  of  the  Scriptural  doctrines  of  atonement  and 
justification.  The  objections  urged  against  the  former  bear  equally 
against  the  latter  doctrines.  And  it  is  a  matter  of  Iiistory  that 
those  who  reject  the  one,  reject  also  the  others. 


202  PART  n.  Ch.  VIII.  — sin. 

Argument  from  Romans  v.  12—21. 
The  Apostle  in  Romans  v.  12-21  teaches  this  doctrine  in  the 
most  formal  and  explicit  manner.  The  design  of  that  passage  is  to 
ilhistrate  the  method  of  salvation.  The  Apostle  had  taught  that 
all  men  are  sinners,  and  the  Aviiole  world  guilty  before  God.  All 
men  being  under  the  condemnation  of  the  law,  it  is  impossible  that 
thev  should  be  justified  by  the  law.  The  same  law  cannot  both  just- 
ify and  condemn  the  same  persons.  As  therefore  no  flesh  can  be 
justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  God  sent  his  Son  for  our  salvation. 
He  assumed  our  nature,  took  our  place,  and  obeyed  and  suffered 
in  our  stead,  and  thus  wrought  out  for  us  a  perfect  and  infinitely 
meritorious  rigliteousness.  On  the  ground  of  that  righteousness, 
God  can  now  be  just  in  justifying  the  ungodly,  if,  renouncing  their 
own  righteousness,  they  receive  and  trust  upon  this  righteousness 
of  God,  freely  offered  to  them  in  the  Gospel.  The  fundamental 
doctrine  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  as  it  is  the  fundamental 
doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  is,  therefore,  that  the  righteousness  of  one 
man,  even  Christ,  can  be  and  is  so  imputed  to  believers  as  to  be 
the  meritorious  ground  of  their  justification  at  the  bar  of  God.  To 
make  this  doctrine  the  more  plain  to  his  readers,  the  Apostle  refers 
to  the  analogous  case  of  the  condemnation  of  the  human  race  for 
the  sin  of  Adam  ;  and  shows  that  as  the  sin  of  Adam  is  the  judi- 
cial ground  of  the  condemnation  of  all  who  were  in  him,  i.  e.,  ot 
all  represented  by  him,  so  tiie  obedience  of  Christ  is  the  judicial 
ground  of  the  justification  of  all  who  are  in  Him.  In  the  prose- 
cution of  his  plan  he  first  asserts  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to 
his  posterity.  He  then  proves  it.  He  then  comments  upon  it. 
He  then  applies  it ;  and  finally  draws  inferences  from  it.  Thus 
in  every  possible  way,  as  it  would  seem,  he  sets  forth  tlie  doctrine 
as  part  of  the  revelation  of  God.  The  assertion  of  the  doctrine  is 
contained  in  the  twelfth  verse  of  the  chapter.  It  was  by  one  man, 
he  says,  that  sin  and  death  passed  upon  all  men  ;  because  all  siimed. 
They  sinned  through,  or  in,  that  one  man.  His  sin  was  the  sin  of 
all  in  virtue  of  the  union  between  them  and  him.  The  proof  of 
this  doctrine  is  contained  in  verses  thirteen  and  fourteen.  The 
Apostle  argues  thus :  Punishment  supposes  sin  ;  sin  supposes  law ; 
for  sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no  law.  All  men  are  pun- 
ished; they  are  all  subject  to  penal  evils.  They  are,  therefore,  all 
chargeable  with  sin,  and  consequently  are  all  guilty  of  violation  of 
law.  That  law  cannot  be  the  law  of  Moses,  for  men  died  Qi.  e., 
were  subject  to  the  penalty  of  the  law)  before  that  law  was  given. 


§•9.]  IMMEDIATE  IMPUTATION.  203 

It  cannot  be  the  law  as  written  on  the  heart ;  for  those  die  who 
liave  never  committed  any  personal  sin.  There  are  penal  evils, 
therefore,  which  come  upon  all  mankind  prior  to  anything  in  their 
state  or  conduct  to  merit  such  infliction.  The  ground  of  that  in- 
fliction must  therefore  be  sought  out  of  themselves,  i.  e.,  in  the  sin 
of  their  first  parent.  Hence  Adam  is  the  type  of  Christ.  As  the 
one  is  the  head  and  representative  of  his  race,  so  the  other  is  the 
head  and  representative  of  his  people.  As  the  sin  of  the  one  is  the 
ground  of  the  condemnation  of  his  posterity,  so  the  righteousness 
of  the  other  is  the  ground  of  the  justification  of  all  who  are  in  him. 
But  although  there  is  this  grand  analogy  between  the  fall  and  the 
redemption  of  man,  there  are  nevertheless  certain  points  of  differ- 
ence, all  in  favour  of  the  scheme  of  redemption.  If  we  die  for  the 
offence  of  one  man,  much  more  shall  grace  abound  unto  many 
through  one  man.  If  for  one  offence  the  sentence  of  condemnation 
passed  on  all,  the  free  justification  is  from  many  offences.  If  con- 
demned for  a  sin  in  which  we  had  no  personal  and  voluntary  par- 
ticipation, how  much  more  shall  we  live  on  account  of  a  righteous- 
ness, which  we  cordially  receive.  Wherefore,  continues  the 
Apostle,  in  the  application  of  his  illustration,  if  all  men  (in  union 
with  Adam)  are  condemned  by  the  offence  of  one  man,  so  also 
all  (in  union  with  Christ)  shall  be  justified  on  the  ground  of  the 
righteousness  of  one  man.  As  one  man's  disobedience  constituted 
us  sinners,  so  the  obedience  of  one  man  constitutes  us  righteous, 
(verses  18  and  19).  From  these  premises  the  Apostle  draws  two 
conclusions  :  First,  that  the  law  was  not  designed  for  justification, 
but  tliat  sin  might  abound  in  the  knowledge  and  consciousness  of 
men  ;  and  secondly,  that  where  sin  hath  abounded  grace  shall  much 
more  abound.  The  benefits  and  blessings  of  i-edemption  shall  far 
exceed  all  the  evils  of  the  apostasy. 

Whatever  may  be  thouglit  of  the  details  of  this  exposition,  there 
can  hardly  be  a  doubt  that  it  expresses  the  main  idea  of  the  pas- 
sage. Few  can  doubt,  and  few  ever  have  doubted,  that  the  Apostle 
does  here  clearly  teach  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  the  judicial  ground 
of  the  condemnation  of  his  race.  With  this  agrees  not  only,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  the  Scriptural  account  of  the  fall,  but  also 
what  the  Apostle  teaches  in  1  Cor.  xv.  21,  22.  "  For  since  by 
man  came  death,  by  man  came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 
For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive." 
Union  with  Adam  is  the  cause  of  death ;  union  with  Christ  is  the 
cause  of  life. 


204  PART  II.   Ch.  vm.  — sin. 

Argument  from  General  Consent. 
The  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  has  been  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  universal  in  all  ages.  It  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Jews, 
derived  from  the  plain  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
[t  was  and  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Greek,  Latin,  Lutheran,  and 
Reformed  churches.  Its  denial  is  a  novelty.  It  is  only  since  the 
rise  of  Arminianism  that  any  considerable  body  of  Christians  have 
ventured  to  set  themselves  in  opposition  to  a  doctrine  so  clearly 
taught  in  the  Bible,  and  sustained  by  so  many  facts  of  history  and 
experience.  The  points  of  diversity  in  reference  to  this  subject  do 
not  relate  to  the  fact  that  Adam's  sin  is  imputed  to  his  posterity, 
but  either  to  the  grounds  of  that  imputation  or  to  its  consequences. 
In  the  Greek  Church  the  lowest  views  prevalent  among  Christians 
were  adopted.  The  theologians  of  that  church  generally  held  that 
natural  death,  and  a  deterioration  of  our  nature,  and  a  change  for 
the  Avorse  in  the  whole  state  of  the  world,  were  the  only  penal  evils 
which  the  race  of  mankind  suffer  on  account  of  Adam's  sin.  In  the 
Latin  Church  during  the  Middle  Ages,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
great  diversity  of  opinion  obtained  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of 
the  evils  brought  upon  the  world  by  the  apostasy  of  our  first  parent. 
The  Council  of  Trent  declared  those  evils  to  be  death,  the  loss  of 
original  righteousness,  and  sin  which  is  pronounced  to  be  the  death 
of  the  soul.  The  Lutherans  and  Reformed  held  the  same  doctrine 
with  more  consistency  and  earnestness.  But  in  all  this  diversity 
it  was  universally  admitted,  first,  that  certain  evils  are  inflicted 
upon  all  mankind  on  account  of  Adam's  sin ;  and,  secondly,  that 
those  evils  are  penal.  Men  were  universally,  so  far  as  the  Church 
is  concerned,  held  to  bear  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  the  punishment 
of  the  sin  of  their  first  parent. 

Objections  to  the  Doctrine. 

The  great  objection  to  this  doctrine,  that  it  is  manifestly  unjust 
that  one  man  should  be  punished  for  the  sin  of  another,  has  already 
been  incidentally  referred  to.  What  is  punishment?  It  is  evil  or 
suffering  inflicted  in  support  of  law.  Wherein  is  the  injustice  that 
one  man  should,  on  the  ground  of  the  union  between  them,  be 
punished  for  the  sin  of  another  ?  If  there  be  injustice  in  the  case 
it  must  be  in  the  infliction  of  suffering  anterior  to  or  irrespective 
of  personal  ill-desert.  It  does  not  consist  in  the  motive  of  that 
infliction.  The  infliction  of  suffering  to  gratify  malice  or  revenge  is 
of  coiu-se  a  crime.    To  inflict  It  in  mere  caprice  Is  no  less  obviously 


§  10.]  MEDIATE  IMPUTATION.  205 

wrong.  To  inflict  it  for  the  attainment  of  some  right  and  desirable 
end  may  be  not  only  just  but  benevolent.  Is  not  the  support  of 
the  divine  law  such  an  end  ?  The  fact  that  all  mankind  do  suffer 
on  account  of  Adam's  sin  no  believer  in  the  Bible  can  or  does  deny. 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  these  sufferings  were  designed.  They  are 
included  in  the  threatenings  made  in  the  beginning.  They  were 
expressly  declared  to  be  penal  in  the  Bible.  The  sentence  of 
condemnation  is  said  to  have  passed  on  all  men  for  the  offence  of 
one  man.  A  part  of  the  penalty  threatened  against  sin  in  the  great 
progenitor  of  the  race  was  that  his  posterity  should  suffer  the  con- 
sequences of  his  transgression.  They  do  thus  suffer.  It  is  vain, 
therefore,  to  deny  the  fact,  and  no  relief  is  obtained  by  denying 
that  those  sufferings  are  inflicted  in  execution  of  the  penalty  of  the 
law  and  for  the  infinitely  important  object  of  sustaining  its  authority. 

§  10.  Mediate  Imputation. 

About  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  Amyraut,  Cappel, 
and  La  Place  (or  Placaeus),  three  distinguished  professors  in  the 
French  theological  school  at  Saumur,  introduced  several  modifica- 
tions of  the  Augustinian  or  Reformed  doctrine  on  the  decrees, 
election,  the  atonement,  and  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin.  La 
Place  taught  that  we  derive  a  corrupt  nature  from  Adam,  and 
that  that  corrupt  nature,  and  not  Adam's  sin,  is  the  ground  of  the 
condemnation  which  has  come  upon  all  mankind.  When  it  was 
objected  to  this  statement  of  the  case  that  it  left  out  of  view  the 
guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  he  answered  that  he  did  not  deny  the 
imputation  of  that  sin,  but  simply  made  it  dependent  on  our  partici- 
pation of  his  corrupted  nature.  We  are  inherently  depraved,  and 
therefore  we  are  involved  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin.  There  is  no 
direct  or  immediate  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  but 
only  an  indirect  or  mediate  imputation  of  it,  founded  on  the  fact 
that  we  share  his  moral  character.  These  views  were  first  presented 
by  La  Place  in  a  disputation,  "De  statu  hominis  lapsi  ante  gratiam," 
published  in  the  "  Theses  Salmurienses,"  and  afterwards  more 
elaborately  in  a  treatise,  "  De  imputatione  primi  peccati  Adami." 
This  doctrine  was  formally  condemned  by  the  National  Synod  of 
France  in  1644-45  ;  ^  by  the  Swiss  churches  in  the  "  Formula  Con- 
sensus ;  "  and  by  the  theologians  of  Holland.  Jaeger,  a  Lutheran 
divine,  in  his  "  Ecclesiastical  History,"  '^  is  justified  in  saying, 
"  Contra  doctrinam  Placgei  —  tota  Gallia  reformata,  quin  et  Theologi 

1  See  Quick's  Synodicon,  Loudon,  1692. 

2  Tom.  i.  lib.  ix.   cap.  v. 


206  PART  n.   Ch.  viil  — sin. 

reformati  in  HollandiS,  surrexere."  The  decree  of  the  French 
Synod  of  Charenton  on  this  snbject  is  as  follows:  "Cum  relatum 
esset  ad  Synodum,  scripta  qusedam  ....  prodisse,  quae  totam 
rationem  peccati  originalis  sola  corruptione  hsereditaria  in  omnibus 
hominibus  inhaerente  definiunt,  et  primi  peccati  Adami  imputationem 
negant :  Damnavit  Synodus  doctrinam  ejusmodi,  quatenus  peccati 
originalis  naturam  ad  corruptionem  haereditariam  posterum  Adas 
ita  restringit,  ut  imputationem  excludat  primi  illius  peccati,  quo 
lapsus  est  Adam  :  Adeoque  censuris  omnibus  ecclesiasticis  subjicien- 
dos  censuit  pastores,  professores,  et  quoscunque  alios,  qui  in  hujus 
quaestionis  disceptatione  a  communi  sententia  recesserit  Ecclesiarum 
Protestantium,  quae  omnes  hactenus  et  corruptionem  illam,  et  impu- 
tationem banc  in  omnes  Adami  posteros  descendentem  agnoverunt." 

It  was  to  evade  the  force  of  this  decision  that  Placaeus  proposed 
the  distinction  between  mediate  and  immediate  imputation.  He 
said  he  did  not  deny  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  but  only  that  it 
preceded  the  view  of  hereditary  corruption.  But  this  is  the  very 
thing  which  the  Synod  asserted.  Hereditary  corruption,  or  spiritual 
death  is  the  penalty,  or,  as  expressed  by  the  Lutheran  confessions, 
by  Calvin,  and  by  the  Protestants  generally,  it  was  an  evil  inflicted 
by  "  the  just  judgment  of  God,  on  account  of  Adam's  sin  (propter 
peccatum  Adami)."  The  Formula  Consensus  Ecclesiarum  Hel- 
veticarum  was  set  forth  1675,  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of 
Amyraut  on  universal  grace,  to  the  doctrine  of  Placaeus  on  mediate 
imputation,  and  to  that  of  others  concerning  the  active  obedience 
of  Christ.^  In  that  Formula  it  is  said  :  "  Censemus  igitur  (i.  e., 
because  the  covenant  of  works  was  made  not  only  with  Adam,  but 
also  in  him,  with  the  whole  human  race)  peccatum  Adami  omnibus 
ejus  posteris,  judicio  Dei  arcano  et  justo,  imputari.  Testatur  quippe 
Apostolus  'in  Adamo  omnes  peccasse : '  '  Unius  hominis  inobedientia 
peccatores  multos  constitui ; '  et  '  in  eodem  omnes  mori.'  Neque  vero 
ratio  apparet,  quemadmodum  haereditaria  corruptio,  tanquam  mors 
spiritualis,  in  universum  genus  humanum  justo  Dei  judicio  cadere 
possit,  nisi  ejusdem  generis  humani  delictum  aliquod,  mortis  illius 
reatum  inducens,  praecesserit.  Cum  Deus  justissimus  totius  terrae 
judex  nonnisi  sontem  puniat."  ^ 

Rivet,  one  of  the  professors  of  the  University  of  Leyden,  published 
a  treatise  in  support  of  the  decision  of  the  French  Synod,  entitled 
"  Decretum  Synodi  Nationalis  Ecclesiarum  Reformatarum  Galliae 
initio  anni  1645,  de  Imputatione  primi  Peccati  omnibus  Adami  pos- 

1  Niemeyer's  Colleelio  Confeasionum,  p.  Ixxxi. 

2  Art.  X.  ;  Niemeyer,  p.  733. 


§  10.]  MEDIATE  IMPUTATION.  207 

ten's,  cum  Ecclesiarum  et  Doctorum  Protestantium  consensu,  ex 
scriptis  eorum  ab  Andrea  Riveto  collecto."  This  treatise  is  con- 
tained in  the  third  volume  of  the  folio  edition  of  his  works.  His 
colleagues  in  the  University  published  their  formal  indorsement  of 
his  work,  and  earnestly  commended  it  as  an  antidote  to  the  new 
doctrine  of  Placaaus.  The  theologians  of  the  other  universities  of 
Holland  joined  in  this  condemnation  of  the  doctrine  of  mediate  im- 
putation. They  call  it  the  evprj/xa  Imputationis  Mediatae  a  "  ficuJne- 
um  nuditatis  indecentis  tegumentum,"  and  insist  that  the  imputation 
of  Adam's  sin  is  no  more  founded  on  our  inherent  corruption  than 
the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  is  founded  on  our  inherent 
holiness.  "Quomodo  et  justitiaChristi  electis  imputatur,  non  mediate 
per  renovationem  et  obedientiam  horum  propriam,  sed  immediate, 
ad  quam  haec  ipsa  propria  eorum  obedientia  demum  subsequitur."  ^ 
These  two  great  doctrines  were  regarded  as  inseparably  united. 
The  Protestant  theologians  agree  in  holding  that  "  Imputatio 
justitiae  Christi  et  culpae  Adami  pari  passu  ambulant,  et  vel  utraque 
ruit,  vel  utraque  agnosci  debet."''' 

Mediate  Imputation  outside  of  the  French  Church. 

Although  the  doctrine  of  mediate  imputation  was  thus  generally 
condemned  both  by  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran  Churches,  it  found 
some  distinguished  advocates  beyond  the  pale  of  the  French  Church. 
The  younger  Vitringa,  Venema,  and  Stapfer,  in  his  "  Polemical 
Theology,"  gave  it  their  sanction.  From  the  last  named  author  it 
was  adopted  by  President  Edwards,  in  one  chapter  of  his  work  on 
"  Original  Sin."  It  appears  there,  however,  merely  as  an  excres- 
cence. It  was  not  adopted  into  his  system  so  as  to  qualify  his 
theological  views  on  other  doctrines.  Although  President  Edwards 
does  clearly  commit  himself  to  the  doctrine  of  Placgeus,  as  he  says,^ 
"  that  the  evil  disposition  is  first,  and  the  charge  of  guilt  conse- 
quent,'' nevertheless  he  expressly  teaches  the  doctrine  of  imme- 
diate imputation  formally  and  at  length  in  other  portions  of  that 
work.  (1.)  He  argues  through  a  whole  section  to  prove  the 
federal  headship  of  Adam.  (2.)  He  holds  that  the  threatening 
of  death  made  to  Adam  included  the  loss  of  oricrinal  righteousness 
and  spiritual  death,  (o.)  That  that  threatening  included  his  pos- 
terity, and  that  the  evils  which  they  suffer  in  consequence  of  his 
sin  are  truly  penal.     If  this  be  so,  if  the  loss  of  original  righteous- 

1  De  Jloor,  Commentnrius  in  Mavch'd  Compendium,  cap.  xv.  §  32,  vol.  iii.  p.  280. 

2  Ibid,  vol   iii.  p.  25.5. 

8  Original  Sin,  iv.  iii.;    Works,  edit.  N".  Y.  1829,  vol.  ii.  p.  544. 


208  PART  II.    Ch.  VIII.— sin. 

ness  and  inherent  depravity  are  penal,  they  suppose  antecedent 
guilt.  That  is,  a  guilt  antecedent,  and  not  consequent  to  the  exist- 
ence and  view  of  the  depravity.  (4.)  In  his  exposition  of  Rom. 
V.  12-21,  he  expressly  teaches  the  common  doctrine,  and  says,  "  As 
this  place  in  general  is  very  full  and  plain,  so  the  doctrine  of 
the  corruption  of  nature,  as  derived  from  Adam,  and  also  the  im- 
putation of  his  first  sin,  are  both  clearly  taught  in  it.  The  impu- 
tation of  Adam's  one  transgression,  is  indeed  most  directly  and 
frequently  asserted.  We  are  here  assured  that  by  one  man's  sin 
death  passed  on  all;  all  being  adjudged  to  this  punishment  as  having 
sinned  (so  it  is  implied)  in  that  one  man's  sin.  And  it  is  repeated, 
over  and  over,  that  all  are  condemned,  many  are  dead,  many  made 
sinners,  etc.,  by  one  man's  offence,  by  the  disobedience  of  one,  and 
by  one  offence."  ^  As  guilt  precedes  punishment,  if,  as  Edwards 
says,  depravity  or  spiritual  death  is  a  punishment,  then  the  impu- 
tation of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin  precedes  depravity,  and  is 
not  consequent  upon  it.  This  is  the  current  representation  through- 
out the  work  on  Original  Sin.  It  is  only  when  in  answer  to  the 
objection  that  it  is  unjust  that  we  should  be  punished  for  the  sin 
of  Adam,  that  he  enters  on  an  abstruse  metaphysical  discussion  on 
the  nature  of  oneness  or  identity,  and  tries  to  prove  ^  that  Adam 
and  his  posterity  are  one,  and  not  distinct  agents.  It  is,  therefore, 
after  all,  realism,  rather  than  mediate  imputation,  that  Edwards  for 
the  time  adopted.  Placaeus  and  his  associates,  in  order  to  defend 
the  ground  which  they  had  taken,  appealed  to  many  passages  in 
the  writings  of  earlier  theologians  which  seemed  to  ignore  the  im- 
mediate imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  to  place  the  condemnation 
of  the  race  mainly,  if  not  exclusively,  upon  the  hereditary  depravity 
derived  from  our  first  parent.  Such  passages  were  easily  to  be 
found,  and  they  are  easily  accounted  for  without  assuming,  con- 
trary to  the  clearest  evidence,  that  the  direct  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin  was  either  doubted  or  denied.  Before  Arius  arose  with  the 
direct  denial  of  the  true  divinity  of  Christ  and  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  the  language  of  ecclesiastical  writers  was  confused 
and  contradictory.  In  like  manner,  even  in  the  Latin  Church,  and 
in  the  writings  of  Augustine  himself,  much  may  be  found,  before 
the  rise  of  the  Pelagian  controversy,  which  it  is  hard  to  reconcile 
with  the  Augustinian  system.  Augustine  was  obliged  to  publish 
a  volume  of  retractions,  and  in  many  cases  where  he  had  nothing 
to  retract,  he  found  much  to  modify  and  .explain.  It  is  not  won- 
derful, therefore,  that  before  any  one  openly  denied  the  doctrine 

1  Original  Sin,  iii.  i. ;   Wm-ks,  vol.  ii.  p.  512.  2  Jind.  p.  546. 


§  10.]  MEDIATE   IMPUTATION".  209 

of  immediate  imputation,  and  especially  when  the  equally  impor- 
tant doctrine  of  hereditary  depravity  was  openly  rejected  by  an 
influential  party  in  the  Romish  Church,  the  Protestant  theologians 
should  apparently  ignore  a  doctrine  which  no  one  denied,  and 
devote  their  attention  principally  to  the  points  which  were  then  in 
controversy.  Rivet,  however,  clearly  shows  that  although  not  ren- 
dered prominent,  the  immediate  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  was 
universally  assumed.  This  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  all  the  evil 
consequences  of  Adam's  apostasy,  mortality,  the  loss  of  original 
righteousness,  corruption  of  nature  or  spiritual  death,  etc.,  etc., 
were  of  the  nature  of  punishment.  What  the  Reformers  were 
anxious  to  maintain  was,  that  oi-iginal  hereditary  depravity  (concu- 
piscence, in  the  language  of  the  Latin  Church)  was  of  the  nature 
of  sin,  and  consequently  that  men  do  not  perish  eternally  solely 
propter  peccatum  alienum^  but  also  propter  peccatuvi  proprium. 
This  was  specially  the  case  with  Calvin.  In  the  Confession  of 
Faith  which  he  drew  up  for  the  school  in  Geneva,  it  is  said,  "  Sin- 
guli  nascuntur  originali  peccato  infecti  .  .  .  et  a  Deo  damnati,  non 
propter  alienum  delictum  duntaxat,  sed  propter  improbitatem,  quae 
intra  eos  est."  And  elsewhere  he  says :  "  Dicimus  Deum  justo 
judicio  nobis  in  Adamo  maledixisse,  ac  voluisse  nos  ob  illius  pecca- 
tum corruptos  nasci,  ut  in  Christo  instauremur."  Again  :  "  Pec- 
cavit  unus,  omnes  ad  pcenam  trahuntur,  neque  id  modo,  sed  ex 
unius  vitio,  contagionem  omnes  contrahunt."  Again  :  "  Si  qusra- 
tur  causa  maledictionis,  quae  incumbit  omnibus  posteris  Adse,  dicitur 
esse  alienum  peccatum,  et  cujusque  proprium."  To  the  same 
effect,  Beza  says :  ^  "  Tria  sunt  quae  hominem  reum  constituunt 
coram  Deo,  (1.)  Culpa  promanans  ex  eo  quod  omnes  peccavimus 
in  proto  lapso  (Rom.  v,  12).  (2.)  Corruptio  quae  est  paena  istius 
culpae,  impositam  tam  Adamo,  quam  posteris.  (3.)  Peccata  quae 
perpetrant  homines  adulti."  ^  Principal  Cunningham  ^  calls  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  doctrine  of  immediate  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin  is  much  more  explicitly  stated  in  the  Westminster  Larger  and 
Shorter  Catechisms  than  in  the  Confession  of  Faith.  This  he 
very  naturally  accounts  for  by  the  supposition  that  the  denial  of 
that  doctrine  by  Placaeus  had  not  attracted  attention  in  England 
when  the  Confession  was  framed  (1646),  but  did  become  known 
before  the  Catechisms  were  completed. 

1  Apolog.  pro  Jnstificaiione. 

3  See  Turrettin,  locus  ix.  quaes.  9,  and  De  Moor's  Commentarius  in  Johannis  Marchii  Com,' 
pendium,  caput  xxv.  §  32,  vol.  iii.  p.  260  jf.,  where  an  extended  account  of  this  controversy 
may  be  found. 

3   The  Reformers  and  the  Theology  of  (he  Reformation,  second  edition,  p.  383. 

VOL.  H.  14 


210  PART   II.     Ch.   VIIL— sin. 

Objections  to  the  Doctrine  of  3Iediate  Imputation. 
Tlie  leading  objections  against  the  doctrine  of  mediate  imputa- 
tion are, — 

1.  That  it  denies  what  the  Scriptures  assert.  The  Scriptures 
assert  that  the  sentence  of  condemnation  has  passed  upon  all  men 
for  the  sin  of  one  man.  This  the  doctrine  of  mediate  imputation 
denies,  and  affirms  that  the  ground  of  that  condemnation  is  inhe- 
rent depravity.  We  are  accounted  partakers  of  Adam's  sin  only 
because  we  derive  a  corrupt  nature  from  him.  According  to  the 
Scriptures,  however,  the  reason  why  we  are  depraved  is,  that  we 
are  regarded  as  partakers  of  his  sin,  or  because  the  guilt  of  that  sin 
is  imputed  to  us.  The  guilt  in  the  order  of  nature  and  fact  precedes 
the  sj)iritual  death  which  is  its  penal  consequent. 

2.  This  doctrine  denies  the  penal  character  of  the  hereditary  cor- 
ruption in  which  all  men  are  born.  According  to  the  Scriptures 
and  to  the  faith  of  the  church  universal,  mortality,  the  loss  of  origi- 
nal righteousness,  and  hereditary  corruption  are  inflicted  upon  man- 
kind in  execution  of  the  threatening  made  against  Adam,  and  are 
included  in  the  comprehensive  word,  death,  by  which  the  threatened 
penalty  was  expressed.  This  is  as  emphatically  taught  by  Presi- 
dent Edwards  as  by  any  other  of  the  Reformed  theologians.  He 
devotes  a  section  of  his  work  to  prove  that  the  death  mentioned  in 
Genesis,  and  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks  in  Rom.  v.  12,  included 
spiritual  death,  and  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  were  included  in 
that  penalty.  He  says :  "  The  calamities  which  come  upon  them 
in  consequence  of  his  sin,  are  brought  on  them  as  punishments."  ^ 
He  moreover  says,  it  destroys  the  whole  scope  of  the  Ajjostle's 
argument  "  to  suppose  that  the  death  of  which  he  here  speaks  as 
coming  on  mankind  by  Adam's  sin,  comes  not  as  a  punishment."^ 
And  again  :  "■  I  do  not  suppose  the  natural  depravity  of  the  poster- 
ity of  Adam  is  owing  to  the  course  of  nature  only ;  it  is  also  owing 
to  the  just  judgment  of  God."  ^  But  punishment  supposes  guilt ;  if 
the  loss  of  righteousness  and  the  consequent  corruption  of  nature 
are  piuiishments,  they  suppose  the  antecedent  imputation  of  guilt ; 
and  therefore  imputation  is  immediate  and  not  mediate  ;  it  is  ante- 
cedent and  not  consequent  to  or  upon  inherent  depravity.  The 
view  which  the  Reformed  theologians  uniformly  present  on  this 
subject  is,  that  God  constituted  Adam  the  head  and  representative 
of  his  race.    The  penalty  attached  to  the  covenant  made  with  him, 

1  Original  Sin,  ii.  i. ;    Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  432.  -  Il>id.  ii.  iv.  ul  supra,  p.  i81. 

8   Ibid.  IV.  ii.  ul  supra,  p.  540. 


§  10.]  MEDIATE  IMPUTATION.  211 

and  which  included  his  posterity,  was  the  loss  of  the  divine  favour 
and  fellowship.  The  consequences  of  the  forfeiture  of  the  divine 
favour  in  the  case  of  Adam  were,  (1.)  The  loss  of  original  right- 
eousness ;  (2.)  The  consequent  corruption  of  his  whole  nature  ; 
and,  (3.)  Exposure  to  eternal  death.  These  consequences  come 
on  his  posterity  in  the  same  order :  first,  the  loss  or  rather  destitu- 
tion of  original  righteousness  ;  and  secondly,  corruption  of  nature  ; 
and  thirdly,  exposure  to  eternal  death  ;  so  that  no  child  of  Adam 
is  exposed  to  eternal  death  irrespective  of  his  own  personal  sinful- 
ness and  ill-desert.  On  this  point  Turrettin  says  :  "  Poena  quam 
peccatum  Adami  in  nos  accersit,  vel  est  privativa,  vel  positiva. 
Prior  est  carentia  et  privatio  justitiae  originalis  ;  posterior  est 
mors  turn  temporalis,  turn  £eterna,  et  in  genere  mala  omnia, 
quae  peccatoribus  immittuntur.  Etsi  secunda  necessario  sequi- 
tur  primam  ex  natura  rei,  nisi  intercedat  Dei  misericordia,  non 
debet  tamen  cum  ea  confundi.  Quoad  primam  dicimus  Adami 
peccatum  nobis  imputari  immediate  ad  poenam  privativam,  quia  est 
causa  privationis  justitise  originalis,  et  sic  corruptionem  antecedere 
debet  saltem  ordine  naturae ;  sed  quoad  posteriorem  potest  dici 
imputari  mediate  quoad  poenam  positivam,  quia  isti  poenje  obnoxii 
non  sumus,  nisi  postquam  nati  et  corrupti  sumus."  ^  Vogelsang''* 
says  :  "  Certe  neminem  sempiterna  subire  supplicia  propter  inobe- 
dientiam  protoplasti,  nisi  mediante  cognata  perversitate."  And 
Mark^  says  that  if  Placaeus  and  others  meant  nothing  more  by 
mediate  imputation  than  that  "  hominum  natorum  actualem  puni- 
tionem  ulteriorem  non  fieri  nudo  intuitur  Adamicffi  transwressionis 
absque  interveniente  etiam  propria  corruptione  et  fluentibus  hinc 
sceleribus  vai'iis,  neminem  orthodoxum  possent  habere  obloquen- 
tem."  But  he  adds,  they  obviously  meant  much  more.  They 
deny  the  imputation  of  the  first  sin  of  Adam  as  the  cause  of  this 
inherent  corruption.  As  Adam  by  his  apostasy  became  subject  to 
eternal  death,  but  through  the  intervention  of  redeeming  grace 
was  doubtless  saved  from  it,  so  also  although  all  his  posterity 
become  liable  to  the  same  dreadful  penalty  through  tlieir  own 
inher(  nt  corruption,  yet  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  and 
hope  that  no  human  being  ever  actually  perishes  who  does  not 
personally  incur  the  penalty  of  the  law  by  his  actual  transgres- 
sion. Tliis  however  is  through  the  redemption  of  Christ.  All  who 
die  in  infancy  are  doubtless  saved,  but  they  are  saved  by  grace.  It 
is  nevertheless    important   that    the    real   views   of  the  Reformed 

1  Loc.  IX.  qusest.  ix.  14,  edit.  Edinburgh,  1847,  p.  558. 

2  Quoted  by  De  Moor,  Commentarius,  vol.  iii.  p.  275.  8  Jhid.  p.  278. 


212  PART   11.     Ch.   VIIL  — Sm. 

Churches,  on  tlie  doctrine  of  immediate  imputation,  should  be 
clearly  understood.  Those  churches  do  not  teach  that  the  first 
sin  of  Adam  is  the  single  and  immediate  ground  of  the  condemna- 
tion of  his  posterity  to  eternal  death,  but  that  it  is  the  ground  of 
their  forfeiture  of  the  divine  favour  from  which  flows  tlie  loss  of 
original  righteousness  and  corruption  of  our  whole  nature,  wliich 
in  their  turn  become  the  proximate  ground  of  exposure  to  final 
perdition,  from  which,  however,  as  almost  all  Protestants  believe, 
all  are  saved  who  have  no  other  sins  to  answer  for. 

Mediate  Imputation  increases  the  Difficulties  to  he  accounted  for. 

3.  It  is  a  further  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  mediate  imputation 
that  it  increases  instead  of  relieving  the  difficulty  of  the  case.  It 
denies  that  a  covenant  was  made  with  Adam.  It  denies  tliat  man- 
kind ever  had  a  probation.  It  assumes  that  in  virtue  of  a  natui'al 
law  of  propagation  when  Adam  lost  the  image  of  God  and  became 
sinful,  his  children  inherit  his  character,  and  on  the  ground  of  that 
character  are  subject  to  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God.  All  the  evils 
therefore  which  the  Scriptural  and  Church  doctrine  represent  as 
coming  upon  the  posterity  of  Adam  as  the  judicial  punishment  of 
his  first  sin,  the  doctrine  of  mediate  imputation  represents  as  sov- 
ereign inflictions,  or  mere  natural  consequences.  What  the  Scrip- 
tures declare  to  be  a  righteous  judgment,  Placaeus  makes  to  be  an 
arbiti'ary  dispensation. 

Inconsistent  with  the  ApostWs  Argument  in  Rom.  v.  12-21. 

4.  It  is  a  still  more  serious  objection  that  this  doctrine  destroys 
the  parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ  on  which  the  Apostle  lays 
so  much  stress  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  The  great  point 
which  he  there  labours  to  teach  and  to  illustrate,  and  which  he 
represents  as  a  cardinal  element  of  the  method  of  salvation,  is 
that  men  are  justified  for  a  righteousness  which  is  not  personally 
their  own.  To  illustrate  and  confirm  this  great  fundamental  doc- 
trine, he  refers  to  the  fact  that  men  have  been  condemned  for  a  sin 
which  is  not  personally  their  own.  He  over  and  over  insists  that 
it  was  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  not  for  our  own  sin  or  sinfulness, 
that  the  sentence  of  death  (the  forfeiture  of  the  divine  favour) 
passed  upon  all  men.  It  is  on  this  ground  he  urges  men  the  more 
confidently  to  rely  upon  the  promise  of  justification  on  the  ground 
of  a  righteousness  which  is  not  inherently  ours.  This  parallel  is 
destroyed,  the  doctrine  and  argument  of  the  Apostle-  are  over- 
turned, if  it  be  denied  that  the  sin  of  Adam,  as  antecedent  to  any 


§  10.]  MEDIATE  IMPUTATION.  213 

sin  or  sinfulness  of  our  own  is  the  ground  of  our  condemnation.  If 
we  are  partakers  of  the  penal  consequences  of  Adam's  sin  only  be- 
cause of  the  corrupt  nature  derived  by  a  law  of  nature  from  him, 
then  we  are  justified  only  on  the  ground  'of  our  own  inherent  holi- 
ness derived  by  a  law  of  grace  from  Christ.  We  have  thus  the 
doctrine  of  subjective  justification,  which  overthrows  the  great 
doctrine  of  the  Refoi'mation,  and  the  great  ground  of  the  peace 
and  confidence  of  the  people  of  God,  namely,  that  a  righteousness 
not  within  us  but  wrought  out  for  us,  —  the  righteousness  of  an- 
other, ev^n  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  and  therefore  an  infinitely 
meritorious  righteousness,  —  is  the  ground  of  our  justification  be- 
fore God.  Any  doctrine  which  tends  to  invalidate  or  to  weaken 
the  Scriptux'al  evidence  of  this  fundamental  article  of  our  faith  is 
fraught  with  evil  greater  than  belongs  to  it  in  itself  considered. 
This  is  the  reason  why  the  Reformed  theologians  so  strenuously 
opposed  the  doctrine  of  La  Place.  They  saw  and  said  that  on  his 
principles  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness 
antecedent  to  our  santification  could  not  be  defended. 

The  Doctrine  founded  on  a  False  Principle, 

5.  Perhaps,  however,  the  most  serious  objection  against  the  doc- 
trine of  mediate  imputation  is  drawn  from  the  principle  on  which  it 
rests,  and  the  arguments  of  its  advocates  in  its  support.  The  great 
principle  insisted  upon  in  support  of  this  doctrine  is  that  one  man 
cannot  justly  be  punished  for  the  sin  of  another.  If  this  be  so 
then  it  is  unjust  in  God  to  visit  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon 
their  children.  Then  it  was  unjust  in  Christ  to  declare  that  the 
blood  of  the  prophets  slain  from  the  beginning  should  come  upon 
the  men  of  his  generation.  Then  it  is  unjust  that  the  Jews  of  the 
present  day,  and  ever  since  the  crucifixion  of  our  Lord,  should  be 
scattered  and  peeled,  according  to  the  predictions  of  the  prophets, 
for  the  rejection  of  the  Messiah.  Then,  also,  were  the  deluge  sent 
in  wrath  upon  the  world,  and  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Go- 
morrah, and  the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites,  in  which  thou- 
sands of  children  perished  innocent  of  the  offences  for  which  those 
judgments  were  inflicted,  all  acts  of  stupendous  injustice.  If  this 
principle  be  sound,  then  the  administration  of  the  divine  govern- 
ment over  the  world,  God's  dealings  with  nations  and  with  the 
Church,  admit  of  no  defence.  He  has  from  the  beginning  and 
through  all  time  held  children  I'esponsible  for  the  conduct  of 
parents,  included  them  without  their  consent  in  the  covenants 
made  with  their  fathei's,  and  visited  upon  them  the  consequences 


214  PART  II.  •ch.  vni.  — sin. 

of  the  violations  of  such  covenants  of  which  thej  were  not  person- 
ally guilty,  as  well  as  bestowed  upon  them  rich  blessings  secured 
by  the  fidelity  of  their  progenitors  without  anything  meritorious  on 
their  part.  Moreover,  if  the  principle  in  question  be  valid,  then 
the  wliole  Scriptural  doctrine  of  sacrifice  and  expiation  is  a  delu- 
sion. And  then,  also,  we  must  adopt  the  Socinian  theory  which 
makes  the  death  of  Christ  instead  of  a  penal  satisfaction  for  sin, 
a  mere  symbolical  inculcation  of  a  truth  —  a  didactic  and  not  an 
expiatory  service.  The  Reformed  theologians  of  the  seventeenth 
century  expressed  their  deep  regret  that  men  professing  orthodoxy 
should  adopt  from  Pelagiaiiis  et  Pelagianizantibus,  against  the 
doctrine  of  immediate  imputation,  "  exceptiones  "  et  "  objectiones 
....  petitas  a  Dei  justitia  et  veritate,  ab  actus  et  personee  Adam- 
icae  singularitate,  ex  sceleris  longe  ante  nos  praeterito  tempore,  ex 
posterum  nulla  scientia  vel  consensione  in  illud,  ex  non  imputatis 
aliis  omnibus  factis  et  fatis  Adami,  etc.,"  which  had  so  often  been 
answered  in  the  controversies  with  the  Socinians  and  Remon- 
strants.^ It  is  very  clear  that  if  no  such  constitution  can  be  right- 
eously established  between  men,  even  by  God,  that  one  man  may 
justly  bear  the  iniquity  of  another,  then  the  Bible  and  Providence 
become  alike  unintelligible,  and  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith  are  overthrown. 

The  Theory  of  Propagation. 

The  theory  of  those  who  deny  all  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to 
his  posterity,  whether  mediate  or  immediate,  and  who  account  for 
the  corruption  of  the  race  consequent  on  his  apostasy,  on  the  gen- 
eral law  of  propagation,  that  like  begets  like,  differs  oidy  in  terms 
from  the  doctrine  of  La  Place.  All  he  meant  by  mediate  imputa- 
tion was  that  the  descendants  of  Adam,  derived  from  him  a  corrupt 
nature,  have  the  same  moral  character,  and  therefore  are  adjudged 
worthy  of  the  same  condemnation.  This  the  advocates  of  the 
tlieory  just  mentioned  are  willing  to  admit.  Their  doctrine  there- 
fore is  liable  to  all  the  objections  which  bear  against  the  doctrine 
of  mediate  imputation,  and  therefore  does  not  call  forth  a  separate 
consideration. 

§  11.  Preexistence. 

The  principle  that  a  man  can  be  justly  held  responsible  or  re- 
garded as  guilty  only  for  his  own  voluntary  acts  and  for  their 
subjective  consequences,  is  so  plausible  that  to  many  minds  it  has 
the  authority  of  an  intuitive  truth.     It  is,  however,  so  clearly  the 

1  De  Moor,  Commentarius  inJohannis  Marckii  Compendium,  vol.  iii.  p.  279. 


§  11.]  PREEXISTENCE.  215 

doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  the  testimony  of  experience  that  men 
are  born  in  sin,  that  they  come  into  the  world  in  a  state  of  guilt 
and  of  moral  pollution,  that  a  necessity  arises  of  reconciling  this 
fact  with  what  they  regard  as  self-evidently  true.  Two  theories 
have  been  proposed  to  effect  this  reconciliation.  The  first  is  that 
of  preexistence.  Origen,  and  after  him,  here  and  there  one  in 
the  history  of  the  Church,  down  to  the  present  day,  assumed  that 
men  existed  in  another  state  of  being  before  their  birth  in  this 
world,  and  having  voluntarily  sinned  against  God  in  that  previous 
state  of  being,  they  come  into  this  world  burdened  witli  the  guilt 
and  pollution  due  to  their  own  voluntary  act.  This  view  of  the 
subject  never  having  been  adopted  by  any  Christian  church,  it  does 
not  properly  belong  to  Christian  theology.  It  is  sufficient  to  re- 
mark concerning  it  :  — 

1.  That  it  does  not  pretend  to  be  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
therefore  cannot  be  an  article  of  faith.  Protestants  unite  in  teach- 
ino;  that  "  The  whole  counsel  of  God,  concerning  all  thinors  neces- 
sary  for  his  own  glory,  and  man's  salvation,  faith  and  life,  is  either 
expressly  set  down  in  Scripture,  or  by  good  and  necessary  conse- 
quence may  be  deduced  from  Scripture,  unto  which  nothing  at  any 
time  is  to  be  added,  whether  by  new  revelations  of  the  Spirit,  or 
the  traditions  of  men."  As  the  doctrine  of  the  preexistence  of 
souls  is  neither  expressly  set  down  in  the  Bible,  nor  deducible  from 
it,  as  is  admitted,  it  cannot  be  received  as  one  of  the  formative 
principles  of  Christian  doctrine.  All  that  its  Christian  advocates 
claim  is  that  it  is  not  contradicted  in  Scripture,  and  therefore  that 
they  are  free  to  hold  it. 

2.  But  even  this  cannot  be  conceded.  It  is  expressly  contrary 
to  the  plain  teachings  of  the  Word  of  God.  According  to  the  his- 
tory of  the  creation,  man  was  formed  in  the  image  of  God.  His 
body  was  fashioned  out  of  the  dust  of  the  earth,  and  his  soul  was 
derived  immediately  from  God,  and  was  pronounced  by  him  "very 
good."  This  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  Adam  was  a 
fallen  spirit.  The  Bible  also  teaches  that  Adam  was  created  in  the 
image  of  God  in  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  holiness,  and  fell 
from  that  state  here  in  this  life,  and  not  in  a  previous  and  higher 
state  of  being.  The  Scriptures  also,  as  we  have  seen,  say  that  it 
was  by  one  man  that  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin, 
because  all  sinned  in  that  one  man.  There  is  a  causal  relation  be- 
tween the  sin  of  Adam  and  the  condemnation  and  sinfulness  of  his 
posterity.  This  contradicts  the  theory  which  refers  the  present 
sinfulness  of  men,  not  to  the  act  of  Adam,  but  to  the  voluntar}^  act 
of  each  individual  man,  in  a  previous  state  of  existence. 


216  PART  n.    Ch.  VIII.  — sin. 

3.  This  doctrine  Is  as  destitute  of  all  support  from  the  testimony 
of  consciousness  as  from  the  authority  of  Scripture.  No  man  has 
any  reminiscences  of  a  previous  existence.  There  is  nothing  In 
his  present  state  which  connects  him  with  a  former  state  of  being. 
It  Is  a  simple,  pure  assumption,  without  the  slightest  evidence  from 
any  known  facts. 

4.  The  theory.  If  true,  affords  no  relief.  Sins  of  which  we  know 
nothing ;  which  were  committed  by  us  before  we  were  born  ;  which 
cannot  be  brought  home  to  the  conscience  as  our  own  sins,  can 
never  be  the  righteous  grounds  of  punishment,  any  more  than  the 
acts  of  an  idiot.  It  is  unnecessary  however  to  pursue  this  subject 
further,  as  the  objections  against  the  realistic  theory,  In  most  In- 
stances, bear  with  equal  force  against  the  theory  of  preexistence. 

§  12.  Realistic  Theory. 

Those  who  reject  the  untenable  doctrine  of  preexistence  and  yet 
hold  to  the  principle  that  guilt  can  attach  only  to  what  is  due  to 
our  agency,  are  driven  to  assume  that  Adam  and  his  race  are  in 
such  a  sense  one,  that  his  act  of  disobedience  was  literally  the  act 
of  all  mankind.  And  consequently  that  they  are  as  truly  person- 
ally guilty  on  account  of  it,  as  Adam  himself  was  ;  and  that  the 
inherent  corruption  flowing  from  that  act,  belongs  to  us  in  the  same 
sense  and  in  the  same  way,  that  It  belonged  to  him.  His  sin,  it  is 
therefore  said,  "•  Is  ours  not  because  it  is  Imputed  to  us ;  but  It  is 
imputed  to  us,  because  it  is  truly  and  properly  our  own."  We 
have  constantly  to  contend  Avith  the  ambiguity  of  terms.  There 
is  a  sense  in  which  the  above  proposition  Is  perfectly  true,  and 
there  is  a  sense  In  which  it  Is  not  true.  It  is  true  that  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  is  Imputed  to  us  because  it  is  ours  according  to 
the  terms  of  the  covenant  of  grace  ;  because  It  was  wrought  out 
for  us  by  our  great  head  and  representative,  who  obeyed  and  suf- 
fered in  our  stead.  But  it  is  not  true  that  it  Is  ours  In  the  sense 
that  we  were  the  agents  by  whom  that  righteousness  was  effected, 
or  the  persons  In  whom  it  Inheres.  In  like  manner,  Adam's  sin 
may  be  said  to  be  imputed  to  us  because  it  Is  ours,  Inasmuch  as  it 
is  the  sin  of  the  divinely  constituted  head  and  representative  of 
our  race.  But  it  is  not  ours  in  the  same  sense  in  which  It  was  his. 
It  was  not  our  act,  i.  g.,  an  act  In  which  our  reason,  will,  and  con- 
science were  exercised.  Thei'e  Is  a  sense  In  which  the  act  of  an 
agent  Is  the  act  of  the  principal.  It  binds  him  In  law,  as  effect- 
ually as  he  could  bind  himself.  But  he  Is  not,  on  that  account, 
the  efficient  agent   of  the   ac'..     The  sense  in   which    many  assert 


§12.]  REALISTIC   THEORY.  217 

that  the  act  of  Adam  was  our  act,  is,  that  the  same  numerical 
nature  or  substance,  the  same  reason  and  will  Avhich  existed  and 
acted  in  Adam,  belong  to  us  ;  so  that  we  were  truly  and  properly 
the  agents  of  his  act  of  apostasy. 

President  Edtvards'  Theory  of  Identity. 

The  assumption  which  President  Edwards  undertakes  to  con- 
trovert, is,  "  Tiiat  Adam  and  his  posterity  are  not  one,  but  entirely 
distinct  agents."  ^  The  theory  on  which  he  endeavours  to  prove  that 
Adam  and  his  posterity  were  one  agent,  is  not  exactly  the  old  real- 
istic theory,  it  is  rather  a  theory  of  his  own,  and  depends  on  his 
peculiar  views  of  oneness  or  identity.  According  to  him,  all  one- 
ness depends  upon  "  the  arbitrary  constitution  of  God."  The 
only  reason  why  a  full  grown  tree  is  the  same  with  its  first  germ ; 
or  that  the  body  of  an  adult  man  is  the  same  with  his  infant  frame  ; 
is  that  God  so  wills  to  regard  them.  No  creature  is  one  and  the 
same  in  the  different  periods  of  its  existence,  because  it  is  numer- 
ically one  and  the  same  substance,  or  life,  or  organism  ;  but  simply 
because  God  "  treats  them  as  one,  by  communicating  to  them  like 
properties,  relations,  and  circumstances  ;  and  so  leads  us  to  regai'd 
and  treat  them  as  one."^  "If  the  existence,"  he  says,  "of  cre- 
ated substance,  in  each  successive  moment,  be  wholly  the  effect  of 
God's  immediate  power  in  that  moment,  without  any  dependence 
on  prior  existence,  as  mucli  as  the  first  creation  out  of  nothing,  then 
what  exists  at  this  moment,  by  this  power,  is  a  new  effect  ;  and 
simply  and  absolutely  considered,  not  the  same  with  any  past 
existence,  though  it  be  like  it,  and  follows  it  according  to  a  certain 
established  method.  And  there  is  no  identity  or  oneness  in  the  case, 
but  what  depends  on  the  arbitrary  constitution  of  the  Creator ; 
who,  by  his  wise  and  sovereign  establishment  so  unites  successive 
new  effects,  that  he  treats  them  as  one."  ^  He  uses  two  illustra- 
tions which  make  his  meaning  perfectly  plain.  The  brightness  of 
the  moon  seems  to  us  a  permanent  thing,  but  is  really  a  new 
effect  produced  every  moment.  It  ceases,  and  is  renewed,  in 
every  successive  point  of  time,  and  so  becomes  altogether  a  new 
effect  at  each  instant.  It  is  no  more  numerically  the  same  thing 
with  that  which  existed  in  the  preceding  moment,  than  the  sound 
of  the  wind  that  blows  now,  is  individually  the  same  sound  of  the 
wind  which  blew  just  before.  What  is  true  of  the  brightness  of 
the  moon,  he  says,  must  be  true  also  of  its   solidity,  and  of  every- 

1  Original  Sin,  iv.  iii. ;    Works,  edit.  N.  Y.  1829,  vol.  ii.  p.  546. 

2  Ibid.  p.  556.  8  Ibid.  pp.  555,  556. 


218  PART  n.  Ch.  viil  — sin. 

thing  else  belonging  to  its  substance.  Again,  images  of  things 
placed  before  a  mirror  seem  to  remain  precisely  the  same,  with  a 
continuing  perfect  identity.  But  it  is  known  to  be  otherwise. 
These  images  are  constantly  renewed  by  the  impression  and  re- 
flection of  new  rays  of  light.  The  image  which  exists  this  mo- 
ment is  not  at  all  derived  from  the  image  which  existed  the  last 
preceding  moment.  It  is  no  more  numerically  the  same,  than  if 
painted  anew  by  an  artist  with  colours  which  vanish  as  soon  as 
they  are  put  on.  The  obvious  fallacy  of  these  illustrations  is,  that 
the  cases  are  apparently,  but  not  really  alike.  The  brightness  of 
the  moon  and  the  image  on  a  mirror,  are  not  substances  having 
continued  existence  ;  they  are  mere  effects  on  our  visual  organs. 
Whereas  the  substances  which  produce  those  effects  are  objective 
existences  or  entities,  and  not  sul:ijective  states  of  our  sensibility. 
Edwards,  however,  says  tliat  what  is  true  of  the  images,  must  be 
true  of  the  bodies  themselves.  "  They  cannot  be  the  same,  with  an 
absolute  identity,  but  must  be  wholly  renewed  every  moment,  if  the 
case  be  as  has  been  proved,  that  their  present  existence  is  not,  strictly 
speaking,  at  all  the  effect  of  their  past  existence  ;  but  is  wholly, 
every  instant,  the  effect  of  a  new  agency  or  exertion  of  the  power- 
ful cause  of  their  existence."  ^  As  therefore,  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  numerical  identity  of  substance  in  created  things,  and  as  all  one- 
ness depends  on  "  the  arbitrary  constitution  of  God,"  and  things 
are  one  only  because  God  so  regards  and  treats  them,  there  is  "  no 
solid  reason,"  Edwards  contends,  why  the  posterity  of  Adam  should 
not  be  "  treated  as  one  with  him  for  the  derivation  ....  of 
the  loss  of  righteousness,  and  consequent  corruption  and  guilt."  ^ 
According  to  this  doctrine  of  identity,  everything  that  exists,  even 
the  soul  of  man,  is,  and  remains  one,  not  because  of  any  continuity 
of  life  and  substance,  but  as  a  series  of  new  effects  produced  in 
every  successive  moment  by  the  renewed  efficiency  of  God.  The 
whole  theory  resolves  itself  iiito  the  doctrine  that  preservation  is 
continued  creation.  The  argument  of  Edwards  in  proof  of  that 
point  is,  that  "  the  existence  of  every  created  substance,  is  a  de- 
pendent existence,  and  therefore  is  an  effect  and  must  have  some 
cause  ;  and  the  cause  must  be  one  of  these  two  ;  either  the  ante- 
cedent existence  of  the  same  substance,  or  else  the  power  of  the 
Creator."  It  cannot  be  the  antecedent  existence  of  the  same  sub- 
stance, and  therefore  must  be  the  power  of  God.  His  conclusion 
is  that  God's  upholding  of  created  substance  "  is  altogether  equiva- 
lent to  an  immediate  production  out  of  nothing,  at  each  moment."  ^ 

1  Or'tfjinnl  Sin,  iv.  iii. ;  Works,  vol.  ii.  p-  555,  note. 

2  Jbld.  p.  557.  ^  ^bid.  p.  554. 


§12.  REALISTIC   THEORY.  219 

Objections  to  the  Edwardian  Theory. 
The  fatal  consequences  of  this  view  of  the  natui'e  of  preservation 
were  presented  under  the  head  of  Providence.     All  that  need  be 
here  remarked,  is,  — 

1.  That  it  pi'oceeds  upon  the  assumption  that  we  can  under- 
stand the  relation  of  the  efficiency  of  God  to  the  effects  pro- 
duced in  time.  Because  every  new  effect  which  we  produce 
is  due  to  a  new  exercise  of  our  efficiency,  it  is  assumed  that 
such  must  be  tlie  case  with  God.  He,  however,  inhabits  eter- 
nity. With  him  there  is  no  distinction  between  the  past  and  future. 
All  things  are  equally  present  to  Him.  As  we  exist  in  time  and 
space,  all  our  modes  of  thinking  are  conditioned  by  these  circum- 
stances of  our  being.  But  as  God  is  not  subject  to  the  limitations 
of  time  or  space,  we  have  no  right  to  transfer  these  limitations  to 
Him.  This  only  proves  that  we  cannot  understand  how  God  pro- 
duces successive  effects.  We  do  not  know  that  it  is  by  successive 
acts,  and  therefore  it  is  most  unreasonable  and  presumptuous  to 
make  that  assumption  the  ground  of  explaining  great  Scriptural 
doctrines.  It  is  surely  just  as  conceivable  or  intelligible  that  God 
should  will  the  continuous  existence  of  the  things  which  He  creates, 
as  that  He  should  create  them  anew  at  every  successive  moment. 

2.  This  doctrine  of  a  continued  creation  destroys  the  Scriptural 
and  common  sense  distinction  between  creation  and  preservation. 
The  two  are  constantly  presented  as  different,  and  they  are  re- 
garded as  different  by  the  common  judgment  of  mankind.  By 
creation,  God  calls  things  into  existence,  and  by  preservation  He 
upholds  them  in  being.  The  two  ideas  are  essentially  distinct. 
Any  theory,  therefore,  which  confounds  them  must  be  fallacious. 
God  wills  that  the  things  which  He  has  created  shall  continue  to 
be ;  and  to  deny  that  He  can  cause  continuous  existence  is  to  deny 
his  omnipotence. 

3.  This  doctrine  denies  the  existence  of  substance.  The  idea 
of  substance  is  a  primitive  idea.  It  is  given  in  the  constitution  of 
our  nature.  It  is  an  intuitive  truth,  as  is  proved  by  its  universal- 
ity and  necessity.  One  of  the  essential  elements  of  that  idea  is 
uninterrupted  continuity  of  being.  Substance  is  that  which  stands  ; 
which  remains  unchanged  under  all  the  ])henomenal  mutations  to 
which  it  is  subjected.  According  to  the  theory  of  continued  crea- 
tion there  is  and  can  be  no  created  substance.  God  is  the  only 
substance  in  the  universe.  Everything  out  of  God  is  a  series  of 
new  effects  ;  there  is  nothing  which  has  continuous  existence,  and 
therefore  there  is  no  substance. 


220  PART  n.   ch.  vm.  — sin. 

4.  It  necessarily  follows  that  if  God  is  the  only  substance  He  is 
the  only  agent  in  the  universe.  All  things  out  of  God  being  every 
moment  called  into  bemg  out  of  nothing,  are  resolved  into  modes 
of  God's  efficiency.  If  He  creates  the  soul  every  successive  instant, 
He  creates  all  its  states,  thoughts,  feelings,  and  volitions.  The  soul 
is  only  a  series  of  divine  acts.  And  therefore  there  can  be  no 
free  agency,  no  sin,  no  responsibility,  no  individual  existence.  The 
universe  is  only  the  self-manifestation  of  God.  This  doctrine, 
therefore,  in  its  consequences,  is  essentially  pantheistic. 

5.  In  resolving  all  identity  into  an  "  arbitrary  constitution  of 
God,"  it  denies  that  there  is  any  real  identity  in  any  created  things. 
Edwards  expressly  says,  They  are  not  numerically  the  same. 
They  cannot  be  the  same  with  an  absolute  identity.  They  are  one 
only  because  God  so  regards  them,  and  because  they  are  alike,  so 
that  we  look  upon  them  as  the  same.  This  being  the  case,  there 
seems  to  be  no  foundation  even  for  guilt  and  pollution  in  the  indi- 
vidual soul  as  flowing  from  its  own  acts,  because  there  is  nothing 
but  an  apparent,  not  a  real  connection  between  the  present  and  the 
past  in  the  life  of  the  soul.  It  is  not  the  same  soul  that  is  guilty 
to-day  of  the  sin  connnitted  yesterday.  Much  less  can  such  an 
arbitrary  or  assumed  and  merely  apparent  identity  between  Adam 
and  his  race  be  a  just  ground  of  their  bearing  the  guilt  of  his  first 
sin.  In  short,  this  doctrine  subverts  all  our  ideas.  It  assumes  that 
things  which,  as  the  human  soul,  are  really  one,  are  not  one  in  the 
sense  of  numerical  sameness  ;  and  that  things  wliich  are  not  identi- 
cal, as  Adam  and  his  posterity,  are  one  in  the  same  sense  that  the 
soul  of  a  man  is  one,  or  that  identity  can  be  predicated  of  any 
creature.  This  doctrine,  therefore,  which  would  account  for  the 
guilt  and  native  depravity  of  men  on  the  assumption  of  an  arbitrary 
divine  constitution  of  God,  by  which  beings  which  are  really  distinct 
subsistences  are  declared  to  be  one,  is  not  only  contrary  to  the 
Scriptures  and  to  the  intuitive  convictions  of  men,  but  it  affijrds  no 
satisfactory  solution  of  the  facts  which  it  is  intended  to  explain.  It 
does  not  bring  home  to  any  human  conscience  that  the  sin  of  Adam 
was  his  sin  in  the  sense  in  which  our  sins  of  yesterday  are  our  guilt 
of  to-day. 

The  Proper  Realistic  Theory. 

Tlie  strange  doctrine  of  Edwards,  above  stated,  agrees  with  the 
realistic  theory  so  far  as  that  he  and  the  realists  unite  in  saying 
that  Adam  and  his  race  are  one  in  the  same  sense  in  which  a  tree 
is  one  during  its  whole  progress  from  the  germ  to  maturity,  or  in 
which  the  human  soul  is  one  during  all  the  diffl'ivnt  periods  of  its 


§12]  REALISTIC   THEORY.  221 

existence.  It  essentially  differs,  however,  in  that  Edwards  denies 
numerical  sameness  in  any  case.  Identity,  according  to  him,  does 
not  in  any  creature  include  the  continued  existence  of  one  and  the 
same  substance.  The  realistic  doctrine,  on  the  contrary,  makes 
the  numerical  sameness  of  substance  the  essence  of  identity.  Every 
genus  or  species  of  plants  or  animals  is  one  because  all  the  individ- 
uals of  those  genera  and  species  are  partakers  of  one  and  the  same 
substance.  In  every  species  there  is  but  one  substance  of  which 
the  individuals  are  the  modes  of  manifestation.  According  to  this 
theory  humanity  is  numerically  one  and  the  same  substance  in 
Adam  and  in  all  the  individuals  of  his  race.  The  sin  of  Adam 
was,  therefore,  the  sin  of  all  mankind,  because  committed  by 
numerically  the  same  rational  and  voluntary  substance  which  con- 
stitutes us  men.  It  was  our  sin  in  the  same  sense  that  it  was  his 
sin,  because  it  was  our  act  (the  act  of  our  reason  and  will)  as  much 
as  it  was  his.  There  are  two  classes  of  objections  to  this  theory 
which  might  here  properly  come  under  consideration.  First,  those 
which  bear  against  realism  as  a  theory ;  and,  secondly,  those  which 
relate  to  its  application  to  the  relation  of  the  union  between  us  and 
Adam  as  a  solution  of  the  problems  of  original  sin. 

Recapitulation  of  the  Objections  to  the  Realistic  Theory. 

The  objections  to  the  realistic  doctrine  were  presented  when  the 
nature  of  man  was  under  consideration.  It  was  then  stated, 
(1.)  That  realism  is  a  mere  hypothesis  ;  one  out  of  many  possible 
assumptions.  Possibility  is  all  that  can  be  claimed  for  it.  It  cannot 
be  said  to  be  probable,  much  less  certain  ;  and  therefore  cannot 
legitimately  be  made  the  basis  of  other  doctrines.  (2.)  That  it  has 
no  support  from  the  Scriptures.  The  Bible  indeed  does  say  that 
Adam  and  his  race  are  one  ;  but  it  also  says  that  Christ  and  his 
people  arS  one  ;  that  all  the  multitudes  of  believers  of  all  ages  and 
in  heaven  and  earth  are  one.  So  in  common  life  we  speak  of  every 
organized  community  as  one.  The  visible  Church  is  one.  Every 
separate  state  or  kingdom  is  one.  Everything  depends  on  the 
nature  of  this  oneness.  And  that  is  to  be  determined  by  the 
nature  of  the  thing  spoken  of,  and  the  usus  loqiiendi  of  the  Bible 
and  of  ordinary  life.  As  no  man  infers  from  the  fact  that  the 
Scriptui'es  declare  Christ  and  his  people  to  be  one,  that  they  are 
numerically  the  same  substance  ;  or  from  the  unity  predicated  of 
believers  as  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  mankind,  that  they  are 
of  one  substance  and  the  rest  of  men  of  a  different  substance ;  so 
we  have  no  right  to  infer  from  the  fact  that  the  Bible  says  that 


222  PART  II.     Cn.   VIII.  — SIN. 

Adam  and  his  posterity  are  one  that  they  are  numerically  the  same 
substance.  Neither  do  the  Scriptures  so  describe  the  nature  and 
eftects  of  the  union  between  us  and  Adam  as  to  necessitate  or  justify 
the  realistic  doctrine.  The  nature  and  effects  of  our  oneness  with 
Adam  are  declared  in  all  essential  points  to  be  analogous  to  the 
nature  and  effects  of  our  oneness  with  Christ.  As  the  latter  is  not 
a  oneness  of  substance,  so  neither  is  the  other.  (3.)  It  was  shown 
that  realism  has  no  support  from  the  consciousness  of  men,  but  on 
the  contrary,  that  it  contradicts  the  teachings  of  consciousness  as 
interpreted  by  the  vast  majority  of  our  race,  learned  and  unlearned. 
Every  man  is  revealed  to  himself  as  an  individual  substance. 
(4.)  Realism,  as  argued  above,  contradicts  the  doctrine  of  the 
Scriptures  in  so  far  that  it  is  irreconcilable  with  the  Scriptural  doc- 
trine of  the  separate  existence  of  the  soul.  (5.)  It  subverts  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  so  far  that  it  makes  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Spirit  one  God  only  in  the  sense  in  which  all  men  are  one 
man.  The  persons  of  the  Trinity  are  one  God,  because  they  are 
one  in  essence  or  substance  ;  and  all  men  are  one  man  because 
they  are  one  in  essence.  The  answers  which  Trinitarian  realists 
give  to  this  objection  are  unsatisfactory,  because  they  assume  the 
divisibility,  and  consequently  the  materiality  of  Spirit.  (6.)  It  is 
difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  reconcile  the  realistic  theory  with  the 
sinlessness  of  Christ.  If  the  one  numerical  essence  of  humanity 
became  guilty  and  polluted  in  Adam,  and  if  we  are  guilty  and  pol- 
luted because  we  are  partakers  of  that  fallen  substance,  how  can 
Christ's  human  nature  have  been  free  from  sin  if  He  took  upon 
Him  the  same  numerical  essence  which  sinned  in  Adam.  (7.)  The 
above  objections  are  theological  or  Scriptural  ;  others  of  a  philo- 
sophical character  have  availed  to  banish  the  doctrine  of  realism 
from  all  modern  schools  of  philosophy,  except  so  far  as  it  has  been 
merged  in  the  higher  forms  of  pantheistic  monism. 

Realism  no  Solution  of  the  Problem  of  Original  Sin. 
The  objections  which  bear  against  this  theory  as  a  solution  of 
the  problems  of  original  sin  are  no  less  decisive.  There  are  two 
things  which  realism  proposes  to  explain.  First,  the  fact  that  we 
are  punished  for  the  sin  of  Adam  ;  and,  secondly,  that  hereditary 
depravity  is  in  us  truly  and  properly  sin,  involving  guilt  as  well  as 
pollution.  The  former  is  accounted  for  on  the  ground  that  Adam's 
sin  was  our  own  act ;  and  the  latter  on  the  ground  that  native 
depravity  is  the  consequence  of  our  own  voluntary  action.  As  a 
man  is  responsible  for  his  character  or  permanent  state  of  mind 


§12.]  REALISTIC   THEORY.  223 

produced  by  his  actual  transgressions,  so  we  are  responsible  for  the 
character  with  which  we  come  into  the  world,  because  it  is  the 
result  of  our  voluntary  apostasy  from  God.  To  this  it  is  an  obvious 
objection,  — 

1.  That  admitting  realism  to  be  true  ;  admitting  that  humanity 
is  numerically  one  and  the  same  substance,  of  which  individual  men 
are  the  modes  of  manifestation ;  and  admitting  that  this  generic 
humanity  sinned  in  Adam,  this  affords  no  satisfactory  solution  of 
either  of  the  facts  above  stated.  Two  things  are  necessary  in  order 
to  vindicate  the  infliction  of  punishment  for  actual  sin  on  the 
ground  of  personal  responsibility.  First,  that  the  sin  be  an  act 
of  conscious  self-determination.  Otherwise  it  cannot  be  brouo;ht 
home  upon  the  conscience  so  as  to  produce  the  sense  of  criminality. 
And  suffering  without  the  sense  of  criminality  or  blameworthiness, 
so  far  as  the  sufferer  is  concerned,  is  not  punishment,  but  wanton 
cruelty.  And,  secondly,  to  vindicate  punishment  in  the  eye  of 
justice,  in  the  case  supposed,  there  must  be  personal  criminality 
manifest  to  all  intelligent  beings  cognizant  of  the  case.  If  a  man 
should  commit  an  offence  in  a  state  of  somnambulism  or  of  insanity, 
when  he  did  not  know  what  he  did,  and  all  recognition  of  which 
on  his  I'estoration  to  a  normal  condition  is  impossible,  it  is  plain 
that  such  an  offence  could  not  justly  be  the  ground  of  punishment. 
Suffering  inflicted  on  such  ground  would  not  be  punishment  in  the 
view  of  the  sufferer,  or  righteous  in  the  view  of  others.  It  is  no 
less  plain  that  if  a  man  should  commit  a  crime  in  a  sound  state  of 
mind,  and  afterwards  become  insane,  he  could  not  justly  be  pun- 
ished so  long  as  he  continued  insane.  The  execution  of  a  maniac 
or  idiot  for  any  offence  committed  prior  to  the  insanity  or  idiocy 
would  be  an  outrage.  If  these  principles  are  correct  then  it  is  plain 
that,  even  admitting  all  that  realists  claim,  it  affords  no  relief.  It 
gives  no  satisfactory  solution  either  of  our  being  punished  for  Adam's 
sin  or  for  the  guilt  which  attaches  to  our  inherent  hereditary  deprav- 
ity. A  sin  of  which  it  is  impossible  that  we  should  be  conscious  as 
our  voluntary  act,  can  no  more  be  the  ground  of  punishment  as  our 
act,  than  the  sin  of  an  idiot,  of  a  madman,  or  of  a  corpse.  When 
tiie  body  of  Cromwell  was  exhumed  and  gibbeted,  Cromwell  was 
not  punished  ;  and  the  act  was,  in  the  sight  of  all  mankind,  merely 
a  manifestation  of  impotent  revenge. 

2.  But  tiie  realistic  theory  cannot  be  admitted.  The  assumption 
that  we  acted  thousands  of  years  before  we  were  born,  so  as  to 
be  personally  responsible  for  such  act,  is  a  monstrous  assumption. 
It  is,  as  Baur  says,  an  unthinkable  proposition  ;  that  is,  one  to  which 


224  PART   II.     Ch.   VIIL  — sin. 

no, intelligible  meaning  .can  be  attached.  We  can  vmderstand  how 
it  may  be  said  that  we  died  in  Christ  and  rose  with  Him  ;  that  his 
death  was  our  death  and  his  resurrection  our  resurrection,  in  the 
sense  that  He  acted  for  us  as  our  substitute,  head,  and  representative. 
But  to  say  that  we  actually  and  really  died  and  rose  in  Him  ;  that 
we  were  the  agents  of  his  acts,  conveys  no  idea  to  the  mind.  In 
like  manner  we  can  understand  how  it  may  be  said  that  we  sinned 
in  Adam  and  fell  with  him  in  so  far  as  he  was  the  divinely  appointed 
head  and  representative  of  his  race.  But  the  proposition  that  wo 
performed  his  act  of  disobedience  is  to  our  ears  a  sound  without  any 
meaning.  It  is  just  as  much  an  impossibility  as  that  a  nonentity 
should  act.  We  did  not  then  exist.  We  had  no  being  before  our 
existence  in  this  world  ;  and  that  we  should  have  acted  before  we 
existed  is  an  absolute  impossibility.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  an 
act  implies  an  agent ;  and  the  agent  of  a  responsible  voluntary  act 
must  be  a  person.  Before  the  existence  of  the  personality  of  a  man 
that  man  cannot  perform  any  voluntary  action.  Actual  sin  is  an  act 
of  voluntary  self-determination  ;  and  therefore  before  the  existence 
of  the  self,  such  determination  is  an  impossibility.  The  stuff  or  sub- 
stance out  of  which  a  man  is  made  may  have  existed  before  he  came 
into  being,  but  not  the  man  himself.  Admitting  that  the  souls  of 
men  are  formed  out  of  the  generic  substance  of  humanity,  that 
substance  is  no  more  the  man  than  the  dust  of  the  earth  out  of 
which  the  body  of  Adam  was  fashioned  was  his  body.  Voluntary 
agency,  responsible  action,  moral  character,  and  guilt  can  be  pred- 
icated only  of  persons,  and  cannot  by  possibility  be  predicable  of 
them,  or  really  belong  to  them  before  they  exist.  The  doctrine, 
therefore,  which  supposes  that  we  are  personally  guilty  of  the  sin 
of  Adam  on  the  ground  that  we  were  the  agents  of  that  act,  that 
our  will  and  reason  were  so  exercised  in  that  action  as  to  make  us 
personally  responsible  for  it  and  for  its  consequences,  is  absolutely 
inconceivable. 

3.  It  is  a  further  objection  to  this  theory  that  it  assigns  no  reason 
why  we  are  responsible  for  Adam's  first  sin  and  not  for  his  sub- 
sequent transgressions.  If  his  sin  is  ours  because  the  whole  of 
humanity,  as  a  generic  nature,  acted  in  him,  this  reason  applies 
as  well  to  all  his  other  sins  as  to  his  first  act  of  disobedience,  at 
least  prior  to  the  birth  of  his  children.  The  genus  was  no  more 
individualized  and  concentrated  in  Adam  when  he  was  in  the  gar- 
den, than  after  he  was  expelled  from  it.  Besides,  why  is  it  the  sin 
of  Adam  rather  than,  or  more  than  the  sin  of  Eve  for  which  we  are 
responsible  ?     That  mankind  do  bear  a  relation  to  the  sin  of  Adam 


§  12.]  REALISTIC   THEORY.  225 

which  they  do  not  sustain  to  the  sin  of  Eve  is  a  plain  Scriptural 
fact.  We  are  said  to  bear  the  guilt  of  his  sin,  but  never  to  bear 
the  guilt  of  hers.  The  reason  is  that  Adam  was  our  representa- 
tive. The  covenant  was  made  with  him  ;  just  as  in  after  genera- 
tions the  covenant  was  made  with  Abraham  and  not  with  Sarah. 
On  this  ground  there  is  an  intelligible  reason  why  the  guilt  of 
Adam's  sin  should  be  imputed  to  us,  which  does  not  apply  to  the 
sin  of  Eve.  But  on  the  realistic  theory  the  reverse  is  the  case. 
Eve  sinned  first.  Generic  humanity  as  individualized  in  her,  apos- 
tatized from  God,  before  Adam  had  offended  ;  and  therefore  it  was 
her  sin  rather  than  his,  or  more  than  his,  which  ruined  our  com- 
mon nature.      But  such  is  not  the  representation  of  Scripture. 

4.  The  objection  urged  against  the  doctrine  of  mediate  imputa- 
tion, that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  Apostle's  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion, and  incompatible  with  his  argument  in  Rom.  v.  J2-21,  bears 
with  equal  force  against  the  realistic  theory.  What  the  Apostle 
teaches,  what  he  most  strenuously  insists  upon,  and  what  is  the 
foundation  of  every  believer's  hope,  is  that  we  are  justified  for  acts 
which  were  not  our  own  ;  of  which  we  were  not  the  agents,  and 
the  merit  of  which  does  not  attach  to  us  personally  and  does  not 
constitute  our  moral  character.  This  he  tells  us  is  analogous  to 
the  case  of  Adam.  We  were  not  the  agents  of  his  act.  His  sin 
was  not  our  sin.  Its  guilt  does  not  belong  to  us  personally.  It  is 
imputed  to  us  as  something  not  our  own,  a  peceatuin  alienum,  and 
the  penalty  of  it,  the  forfeiture  of  the  divine  favour,  the  loss  of 
original  righteousness,  and  spiritual  death,  are  its  sad  consequences. 
Just  as  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  not  our  own  but  is  imputed 
to  us,  and  we  have  a  title  in  justice  on  the  ground  of  that  righteous- 
ness, if  we  accept  and  trust  it,  to  all  the  benefits  of  redemption. 
This,  which  is  clearly  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostle  and  of  the  Prot- 
estant churches,  the  realistic  doctrine  denies.  That  is,  it  denies 
that  the  sin  of  Adam  as  the  sin  of  another  is  the  ground  of  our  con- 
demnation ;  and  in  consistency  it  must  also  deny  (as  in  fact  the 
great  body  of  Realists  do  deny)  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  as 
the  righteousness  of  another,  is  the  ground  of  our  justification. 
What  makes  this  objection  the  more  serious,  is  that  the  reasons 
assigned  for  denying  that  Adam's  sin,  if  not  our  own,  can  justly  be 
imputed  to  us,  bear  with  like  force  against  the  imputation  of  a 
righteousness  which  is  not  personally  our  own.  The  great  princi- 
ple which  is  at  the  foundation  of  the  realistic,  as  of  other  false 
theories  concerning  origmal  sin,  is,  that  a  man  can  be  responsible 
only  for  his  own  acts  and  for  his  self-acquired  character.     If  this 

VOL.  n.  15 


226  PART  II.     Ch.   VIIL  — sin. 

be  so,  then,  according  to  the  Apostle,  unless  we  can  perfectly  ful- 
fil the  law,  and  restore  our  nature  to  the  image  of  God,  by  our  own 
agency,  we  must  perish  for  ever. 

5.  Finally,  the  solution  presented  by  Realists  to  explain  our 
relation  to  Adam  and  to  solve  the  problems  of  original  sin,  ought 
to  be  rejected,  because  Realism  is  a  purely  philosophical  theory. 
It  is  indeed  often  said  that  the  doctrine  of  our  covenant  relation  to 
Adam,  and  of  the  immediate  imputation  of  his  sin  to  his  posterity, 
is  a  theory.  But  this  is  not  correct.  It  is  not  a  theory,  but  the 
simple  statement  of  a  plain  Scriptural  fact.  The  Bible  says,  that 
Adam's  sin  was  the  cause  of  the  condemnation  of  his  race.  It  tells 
us  that  it  is  not  the  mere  occasional  cause,  but  the  judicial  ground 
of  that  condemnation ;  that  it  was  for,  or  on  account  of,  his  sin,  that 
the  sentence  of  condemnation  was  pronounced  upon  all  men.  This 
is  the  whole  doctrine  of  immediate  imputation.  It  is  all  that  that 
doctrine  includes.  Nothing  is  added  to  the  simple  Scriptural  state- 
ment. Realism,  however,  is  a  philosophical  theory  outside  of  the 
Scriptures,  intended  to  account  for  the  fact  that  Adam's  sin  is  the 
ground  of  the  condemnation  of  our  race.  It  introduces  a  doctrine 
of  universals,  of  the  relation  of  individuals  to  genera  and  species, 
concerning  which  the  Scriptures  teach  nothing,  and  it  makes  that 
philosophical  theory  an  integral  part  of  Scripture  doctrine.  This 
is  adding  to  the  word  of  God.  It  is  making  the  truth  of  Scriptural 
doctrines  to  depend  on  the  correctness  of  philosophical  specula- 
tions. It  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  the  relation  which  philosophy 
properly  sustains  to  theology.  (1.)  The  relation  is  intimate  and 
necessary.  The  two  sciences  embrace  nearly  the  same  spheres  and 
are  conversant  with  the  same  subjects.  (2.)  There  is  a  philosophy 
which  underlies  all  Scriptural  doctrines  ;  or  which  the  Scriptures 
assume  in  all  their  teachings.  (3.)  As  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible 
are  from  God,  and  therefore  infallible  and  absolutely  true,  no  philo- 
sophical principle  can  be  admitted  as  sound,  which  does  not  accord 
with  those  doctrines.  (4.)  Therefore  the  true  oflfice  and  sphere  of 
Christian  philosophy,  or  of  philosophy  in  the  hands  of  a  Christian, 
is  to  ascertain  and  teach  those  facts  and  principles  concerning  God, 
man,  and  nature,  which  are  in  accordance  with  the  divine  word. 
A  Christian  cannot  assume  a  certain  theory  of  human  freedom  and 
by  that  theory  determine  what  the  Bible  teaches  of  foreordination 
and  providence  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  he  should  allow  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Bible  to  determine  his  theory  of  liberty.  And  so  of  all 
other  doctrines ;  and  this  may  be  done  in  full  assurance  that  the 
philosophy  which  we  are  thus  led  to  adopt,  will  be  found  to  authen- 


§13.]  ORIGINAL   Sm.  227 

ticate  itself  as  true  at  the  bar  of  enlightened  reason.  The  objec- 
tion to  Realism  is,  that  it  inverts  this  order.  It  assumes  to  con- 
trol Scripture,  instead  of  being  controlled  by  it.  The  Bible  says 
we  are  condemned  for  Adam's  sin.  Realism  denies  this,  and  says 
no  man  is  or  can  be  condemned  except  for  his  own  sin. 

§  13.    Original  Sin. 

The  effects  of  Adam's  sin  upon  his  posterity  are  declared  in  our 
standards  to  be,  (1.)  The  guilt  of  his  first  sin.  (2.)  The  loss  of 
original  righteousness.  (3.)  The  corruption  of  our  whole  nature, 
which  (i.  e.,  which  corruption),  is  commonly  called  original  sin. 
Commonly,  but  not  always.  Not  unfrequently  by  original  sin  is 
meant  all  the  subjective  evil  consequences  of  the  apostasy  of  our 
first  parent,  and  it  therefore  includes  all  three  of  the  particulars 
just  mentioned.  The  National  Synod  of  France,  therefore,  con- 
demned the  doctrine  of  Placaeus,  because  he  made  original  sin  to 
consist  of  inherent,  hereditary  depravity,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin. 

This  inherent  corruption  in  which  all  men  since  the  fall  are  born, 
is  properly  called  original  sin,  (1.)  Because  it  is  truly  of  the  nature 
of  sin.  (2.)  Because  it  flows  from  our  first  parents  as  the  origin 
of  our  race.  (3.)  Because  it  is  the  origin  of  all  other  sins ;  and 
(4.)  Because  it  is  in  its  nature  distinguished  from  actual  sins. 

The  Nature  of  Original  Sin. 

As  to  the  nature  of  this  hereditary  corruption,  although  the  faith 
of  the  Church  Catholic,  at  least  of  the  Latin,  Lutheran,  and  Re- 
formed churches,  has  been,  in  all  that  is  essential,  uniform,  yet 
diversity  of  opinion  has  prevailed  among  theologians.  (1.)  Ac- 
cording to  many  of  the  Greek  fathers,  and  in  later  times,  of  the 
extreme  Remonstrants  or  Arminlans,  it  is  a  physical,  rather  than  a 
moral  evil.  Adam's  physical  condition  was  deteriorated  by  his 
apostasy,  and  that  deteriorated  natural  constitution  has  descended 
to  his  posterity.  (2.)  According  to  others,  concupiscence,  or 
native  corruption,  is  such  an  ascendency  of  man's  sensuous,  or  ani- 
mal nature  over  his  higher  attributes  of  reason  and  conscience,  as 
involves  a  great  proneness  to  sin,  but  is  not  itself  sinful.  Some  of 
the  Romish  theologians  distinctly  avow  this  doctrine,  and  some 
Protestants,  as  we  have  seen,  maintain  that  this  is  the  symbolical 
doctrine  of  the  Roman  Church  itself.  The  same  view  has  been 
advocated  by  some  divines  of  our  own  age  and  country.  (3.)  Oth- 
ers hold  a  doctrine  nearly  allied  to  that  just  mentioned.     They 


228  PART  n.   Ch.  viil  — sm. 

speak  of  inherent  depravity ;  and  admit  tliat  it  is  of  the  nature  of  a 
moral  corruption,  but  nevertheless  deny  that  it  brings  guilt  upon 
the  soul,  until  it  is  exercised,  assented  to,  and  cherished.  (4.)  The 
doctrine  of  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran  churches  upon  this  sub- 
ject is  thus  presented  in  their  authorized  Confessions :  — 

The  "  Augsburg  Confession."^  "  Docent  quod  post  lapsum  Adas 
omnes  homines,  secundum  naturam  propagati,  nascantur  cum  pec- 
cato,  hoc  est,  sine  metu  Dei,  sine  fiducia  erga  Deum,  et  cum  con- 
cupiscentia." 

"  Ai'ticuli  Smalcaldici."  ^  "  Peccatum  haereditarium  tarn  profunda 
et  tetra  est  corruptio  naturas,  ut  nullius  hominis  ratione  intelligi 
possit,  sed  ex  Scripturae  patefactione  agnoscenda,  et  credenda  sit." 

"  Formula  Corcordise."^  "  Credendum  est  ...  .  quod  sit  per 
omnia  totalis  carentia,  defectus  seu  privatio  concreatae  in  Paradise 
justitiae  originalis  seu  imaginis  Dei,  ad  quam  homo  initio  in  veri- 
tate,  sanctitate  atque  justitia  creatus  fuerat,  et  quod  simul  etiam  sit 
impotentia  et  inaptitude,  dSwa/Jia  et  stupiditas,  qua  homo  ad  omnia 

divina  seu  spiritualia  sit  prorsus  ineptus Prasterea,  quod 

peccatum  originale  in  humana  natura  non  tantummodo  sit  ejusmodi 
totalis  carentia,  seu  defectus  omnium  bonorum  in  rebus  spirituali- 
bus  ad  Deum  pertinentibus :  sed  quod  sit  etiam,  loco  imaginis  Dei 
amissse  in  homine,  intima,  pessima,  profundissima  (instar  cujusdam 
abyssi),  inscrutabilis  et  ineffabilis  corruptio  totius  naturae  et  omnium 
virium,  imprimis  vero  superiorum  et  principalium  animae  facultatum, 
in  mente,  intellectu,  corde  et  voluntate." 

"  Constat  Christianos  non  tantum  actualia  delicta  .  .  .  peccata 
esse  agnoscere  et  defin ire  debere,  sed  etiam  .  .  .  hEeredltarium  mor- 
bum  .  .  .  imprimis  pro  horribili  peccato,  et  quidem  pro  principio 
et  capite  omnium  peccatorum  (e  quo  reliquae  transgressiones,  tan- 
quam  e  radice  nascantur  .  .   .)  omnino  habendum  esse."  * 

"  Confessio  Helvetica  II."  ^  "  Qualis  (homo  Adam)  factus  est  a 
lapsu,  tales  sunt  omnes,  qui  ex  ipso  prognati  sunt,  peccato  inquam, 
morti,  variisque  obnoxii  calamitatibus.  Peccatum  autem  intelligi- 
mus  esse  nativam  illam  hominis  corruptionem  ex  primis  illis  nostris 
parentibus  in  nos  omnes  derivatam  vel  propagatam,  qua  concu- 
piscentiis  pravis  immersi  et  a  bono  aversi,  ad  omne  vero  malum 
propensi,  pleni  omni  nequitia,  diffidentia,  contemptu  et  odio  Dei, 
nihil  boni  ex  nobis  ipsis  facere,  imo  ne  cogitare  quidem  possumus." 

"  Confessio  Gallicana."  ^  "  Credimus  hoc  vitium  (ex  propaga- 
tione  manans)  esse  vere  peccatum." 

1  I.  ii.  1 ;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolici,  p.  9.  2  nx.  j.  3 ;  /bid,  p.  317. 

8  I.  10,  11 ;  /biri.  p.  f)40,  the  second  of  that  number. 

<  I.  5;  Jbkl.  p.  640,  the  first  of  that  number. 

6  VIII.;  Nieineyer,  CoUectio  Confessionum,  p.  477.  «xi. ;  Jbid.  p.  332. 


§13.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  229 

"  Articuli  XXXIX."  ^  "  Peccatura  originis  ...  est  vitium  et 
depravatio  naturse  cujuslibet  hominis  ex  Adamo  naturaliter  propa- 
gati,  qua  fit  ut  ab  original!  justitia  quam  longissime  distet ;  ad 
malum  sua  natura  propendeat  et  caro  semper  adversus  spiritum 
concupiscat,  unde  in  unoquoque  nascentium  iram  Dei  atque  dam- 
nationem  meretur." 

"Confessio  Belgiea."^  "  Peccatum  originis  est  corruptio  totius 
naturEB  et  vitium  liareditarium,  quo  et  ipsi  infantes  in  matris  utero 
polluti  sunt :  quodque  veluti  noxia  qusedam  radix  genus  omne 
peccatorum  in  homine  producit,  estque  tarn  foedum  atque  execrab- 
ile  coram  Deo,  ut  ad  universi  generis  humani  condemnationem 
sufficiat." 

"  Catechesis  Heidelbergensis."  (Pravitas  humanas  naturae  exis- 
tit)  "  ex  lapsu  et  inobedientia  primorum  parentum  Adami  et  Evae. 
nine  natura  nostra  ita  est  depravata,  ut  oranes  in  peccatis  con- 
cipiamur  et  nascamur."  ^ 

By  nature  in  these  Confessions  it  is  expressly  taught,  we  are  not 
to  understand  essence  or  substance  (as  was  held  by  Matthias  Pla- 
cius,  and  by  him  only  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation).  On  this 
point  the  Form  of  Concord  says  :  That  although  original  sin  cor- 
rupts our  whole  nature,  yet  the  essence  or  substance  of  the  soul  is 
one  thing,  and  original  sin  is  another.  "  Discrimen  igitur  retinen- 
dum  est  inter  naturam  nostram,  qualis  a  Deo  creata  est,  hodieque 
conservatur,  in  qua  peccatum  originale  habitat,  et  inter  ipsum  pec- 
catum originis,  quod  in  natura  habitat.  Haec  enim  duo  secundum 
sacrae  Scripturae  regulam  distincte  considerari,  doceri  et  credi  debent 
et  possunt."  * 

"  The  Westminster  Confession."  ^  "  By  this  sin  they  (our  first 
parents)  fell  from  their  original  righteousness  and  communion  with 
God,  and  so  became  dead  in  sin,  and  wholly  defiled  in  all  the 
faculties  and  parts  of  soul  and  body.  They  being  the  root  of  all 
mankind,  the  guilt  of  this  sin  was  imputed,  and  the  same  death  in 
sin  and  corrupted  nature  conveyed  to  all  their  posterity,  descending 
from  them  by  ordinary  generation.  From  this  original  corruption, 
whereby  we  are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to 
all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all  actual  trans- 
gressions. This  corruption  of  nature,  during  this  life,  doth  remain 
in  those  that  are  regenerated  ;  and  although  it  be  through  Christ 
pardoned  and  mortified,  yet  both  itself,  and  all  the  motions  thereof, 
are  truly  and  properly  sin." 

1  IX. ;  Niemeyer,  p.  603.  2  xv. ;  Ibid.  p.  370. 

8  VII.;  Ibid.  p.  431. 

<  I.  33;  Hase,  p.  645.  6  Chapter  vi  §§  2-5. 


i 


280  PART  n.  Ch.  vm.  — sin. 

Statement  of  the  Protestant  Doctrine. 

From  the  above  statements  it  appears  that,  according  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Protestant  churches,  original  sin,  or  corruption  of 
nature  derived  from  Adam,  is  not,  (1.)  A  corruption  of  the  sub- 
stance or  essence  of  the  soul.  (2.)  Neither  is  it  an  essential  ele- 
ment infused  into  the  soul  as  poison  is  mixed  with  wine.  The 
Form  of  Concord,  for  example,  denies  that  the  evil  dispositions  of 
our  fallen  nature  are  "  conditiones,  seu  concreatse  essentiales  na- 
turse  proprietates."  Original  sin  is  declared  to  be  an  "  accidens, 
i.  e.,  quod  non  per  se  subsistit,  sed  in  aliqua  substantia  est,  et  ab  ea 
discerni  potest."  The  affirmative  statements  on  this  subject  are, 
(1.)  That  this  corruption  of  nature  affects  the  whole  soul.  (2.) 
That  it  consists  in  the  loss  or  absence  of  original  righteousness, 
and  consequent  entire  moral  depravity  of  our  nature,  including  or 
manifesting  itself  in  an  aversion  from  all  spiritual  good,  or  from 
God,  and  an  inclination  to  all  evil.  (3.)  That  it  is  truly  and 
properly  of  the  nature  of  sin,  involving  both  guilt  and  pollution. 
(4.)  That  it  retains  its  character  as  sin  even  in  the  regenerated. 
(5.)  That  it  renders  the  soul  spiritually  dead,  so  that  the  natural, 
or  unrenewed  man,  is  entirely  unable  of  himself  to  do  anything 
good  in  the  sight  of  God. 

This  doctrine   therefore    stands   <  pposed,  — 

1.  To  that  which  teaches  that  the  race  of  man  is  uninjured  by 
the  fall  of  Adam. 

2.  To  that  which  teaches  that  the  evils  consequent  on  the  fall 
are  merely  physical. 

3.  To  the  doctrine  which  makes  original  sin  entirely  negative, 
consisting  in  the  want  of  original  righteousness. 

4.  To  the  doctrine  which  admits  a  hereditary  depravity  of  na- 
ture, and  makes  it  consist  in  an  inclination  to  sin,  but  denies  that 
it  is  itself  sinful.  Some  of  the  orthodox  theologians  malde  a 
distinction  between  vitium  and  peccatum.  The  latter  term  they 
wished  to  confine  to  actual  sin,  while  the  former  was  used  to  desig- 
nate indwelling  and  hereditary  sinfulness.  There  are  serious 
objections  to  this  distinction  :  first,  that  vitium,  as  thus  understood, 
is  really  sin  ;  it  includes  both  guilt  and  pollution,  and  is  so  defined 
by  Vitringa  and  others  who  make  the  distinction.  Secondly,  it  is 
opposed  to  established  theological  usage.  Depravity,  or  inherent 
hereditary  corruption,  has  always  been  designated  peccatum,  and 
therefore  to  say  that  it  is  not  peccatum,  but  merely  vitium,  produces 
confusion  and  leads  to  error.    Thirdly,  it  is  contrary  to  Scripture  ; 


§  13.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  231 

for  the  Bible  undeniably  designates  indwelling  or  hereditary  cor- 
ruption, or  vitium,  as  dfiaprLa.  This  is  acknowledged  by  Romanists 
who  deny  that  such  eoiicupiscence  after  regeneration  is  of  the  na- 
ture of  sin.^ 

5.  The  fifth  form  of  doctrine  to  which  the  Protestant  faith 
stands  opposed,  is  that  which  admits  a  moral  deterioration  of  our 
nature,  which  deserves  the  displeasure  of  God,  and  which  is  there- 
fore truly  sin,  and  yet  denies  that  the  evil  is  so  great  as  to  amount 
to  spiritual  death,  and  to  involve  the  entire  inability  of  the  natural 
man  to  what  is  spiritually  good. 

6.  And  the  docti'ine  of  the  Protestant  churches  is  opposed  to 
the  teachings  of  those  who  deny  that  original  sin  affects  the  whole 
man,  and  assert  that  it  has  its  seat  exclusively  in  the  affections  or 
the  heart,  while  the  understanding  and  reason  are  uninjured  or 
uninfluenced. 

In  order  to  sustain  the  Augustinian  (or  Protestant)  doctrine  of 
original  sin,  therefore,  three  points  are  to  be  established  :  I.  That 
all  mankind  descending  from  Adam  by  ordinary  generation  are 
born  destitute  of  original  righteousness,  and  the  subjects  of  a  cor- 
ruption of  nature  which  is  truly  and  properly  sin.  II.  That  this 
original  corruption  affects  the  whole  man ;  not  the  body  only  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  soul  ;  not  the  lower  faculties  of  the  soul  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  higher  ;  and  not  the  heart  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  intellectual  powers.  III.  That  it  is  of  such  a  nature  as  that 
before  regeneration  fallen  men  are  "  utterly  indisposed,  disabled, 
and  opposed  to  all  good." 

Proof  of  the  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin. 

First  Argument  from  the  Universality  of  Sin. 

The  first  argument  in  proof  of  this  doctrine  is  drawn  from  the 
universal  sinfulness  of  men.  All  men  are  sinners.  This  is  unde- 
niably the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures.  It  is  asserted,  assumed,  and 
proved.  The  assertions  of  this  fact  are  too  numerous  to  be  quoted. 
In  1  Kings  viii.  46,  it  is  said,  "  There  is  no  man  that  sinneth  not." 
Eccl.  vii.  20,  "  There  is  not  a  just  man  upon  earth,  that  doeth  good, 
and  sinneth  not."  Is.  liii.  6,  "  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray  ; 
w^e  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way."  Ixiv.  6,  "  We  are  all 
as  an  unclean  thing,  and  all  our  righteousnesses  are  as  filthy  rags." 
Ps.  cxxx.  3,  "  If  thou.  Lord,  shouldest  mark  iniquities,  O  Lord, 
who  shall  stand  ?  "  Ps.  cxliii.  2,  "  In  thy  sight  shall  no  man  living 
1  See  above,  pp.  178,  179. 


232  PART  II.     Ch.  VIIL  — sin. 

be  justified."  Rom.  iii.  19,  "  The  whole  world  (ttSs  6  Koo-yuo?)  is 
guilty  before  God."  Verses  22,  23,  "  There  is  no  difference :  for 
all  have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God."  Gal.  iii.  22, 
"  The  Scripture  hath  concluded  all  under  sin  ;"  {.  e.,  hath  declared 
all  men  to  be  under  the  power  and  condemnation  of  sin.  James 
iii.  2,  "  In  many  things  we  offend  all."  1  John  i.  8,  "  If  we  say 
that  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in 
us."  Verse  10,  "  If  we  say  that  we  have  not  sinned,  we  make 
him  a  liar,  and  his  word  is  not  in  us."  1  John  v.  19,  "  The  whole 
world  lieth  in  wickedness."  Such  are  only  a  few  of  the  assertions 
of  the  universal  sinfulness  of  men  with  which  the  Scriptures 
abound. 

But  in  the  second  place,  this  melancholy  fact  is  constantly  as- 
sumed in  the  Word  of  God.  The  Bible  everywhere  addresses  men 
as  sinners.  The  religion  which  it  reveals  is  a  relio;ion  for  sinners. 
All  the  institutions  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  all  the  doctrines  of 
the  New,  take  it  for  granted  that  men  universally  are  under  the 
power  and  condemnation  of  sin.  "  The  world,"  as  used  in  Scrip- 
ture, designates  the  mass  of  mankind,  as  distinguished  from  the 
church,  or  the  regenerated  people  of  God,  and  always  involves  in 
its  application  the  idea  of  sin.  The  world  hateth  you.  I  am  not 
of  the  world.  I  have  chosen  you -out  of  the  world.  All  the  ex- 
hortations of  the  Scriptures  addressed  to  men  indiscriminately, 
calling  them  to  repentance,  of  necessity  assume  the  universality  of 
sin.  The  same  is  true  of  the  general  threatenings  and  promises 
of  the  Word  of  God.  In  short,  if  all  men  are  not  siiniers,  the 
Bible  is  not  adapted  to  their  real  character  and  state. 

But  the  Scriptures  not  only  directly  assert  and  everywhere 
assume  the  universality  of  sin  among  men,  but  this  is  a  point 
which  perhaps  more  than  any  other  is  made  the  subject  of  a  formal 
and  protracted  argument.  The  Apostle,  especially  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  begins  with  a  regular  process  of  proof,  that  all, 
whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  are  under  sin.  Until  this  fact  is  admit- 
ted and  acknowledged,  there  is  no  place  for  and  no  need  of  the 
Gospel,  which  is  God's  method  of  saving  sinners.  Paul  therefore 
begins  by  asserting  God's  purpose  to  punish  all  sin.  He  then 
shows  that  the  Gentiles  are  universally  chargeable  with  the  sin  of 
impiety ;  that  although  knowing  God,  they  neither  worship  him  as 
God,  nor  are  thankful.  The  natural,  judicial,  and  therefore  the 
unavoidable  consequence  of  impiety,  according  to  the  Apostle's 
doctrine,  is  immorality.  Those  who  abandon  Him,  God  gives  up 
to  the  unrestrained  dominion  of  evil.     The  whole  Gentile  world 


§  13.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  233 

therefore  was  sunk  in  sin.  With  the  Jews,  he  tells  us,  the  case 
was  no  better.  They  had  more  correct  knowledge  of  God  and  of 
his  law,  and  many  institutions  of  divine  appointment,  so  that  their 
advantages  were  great  every  way.  Nevertheless  they  were  as 
truly  and  as  universally  sinful  as  the  Gentiles.  Their  own  Scrip- 
tures, which  of  course  were  addressed  to  them,  expressly  declare, 
There  is  none  righteous,  no  not  one.  There  is  none  that  under- 
standeth,  there  is  none  that  seeketh  after  God.  They  are  all  gone 
out  of  the  Avay,  they  are  together  become  unprofitable  ;  there  is 
none  that  doeth  good,  no  not  one.  Therefore,  he  concludes.  The 
whole  world  is  guilty  before  God.  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  all  under 
sin.  Therefore  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified. 
This  is  the  foundation  of  the  Apostle's  whole  doctrinal  system,  and 
of  the  religion  of  the  Bible.  Jesus  Christ  came  to  save  his  people 
from  their  sins.  If  men  are  not  sinners  Christ  is  not  the  Salvator 
Hominum. 

What  the  Scriptures  so  clearly  teach  is  taught  no  less  clearly  by 
experience  and  history.  Every  man  knows  that  he  himself  is  a 
sinner.  He  knows  that  every  human  being  whom  he  ever  saw,  is 
in  the  same  state  of  apostasy  from  God.  History  contains  the 
record  of  no  sinless  man,  save  the  Man  Christ  Jesus,  who,  by 
being  sinless,  is  distinguished  from  all  other  men.  We  have  no 
account  of  any  family,  tribe,  or  nation  free  from  the  contamination 
of  sin.  The  universality  of  sin  among  men  is  therefore  one  of  the 
most  imdeniable  doctrines  of  Scripture,  and  one  of  the  most  certain 
facts  of  experience. ' 

Second  Argument  from  the  Entire  Sinfulness  of  Men. 

This  universal  depravity  of  men  is  no  slight  evil.  The  whole 
human  race,  by  their  apostasy  from  God,  are  totally  depraved. 
B}'  total  depravity,  is  not  meant  that  all  men  are  equally  wicked  ; 
nor  that  any  man  is  as  thoroughly  corrupt  as  it  is  possible  for  a 
man  to  be  ;  nor  that  men  are  destitute  of  all  moral  virtues.  The 
Scriptures  recognize  the  fact,  which  experience  abundantly  con- 
firms, that  men,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree,  are  honest  in  dealings, 
kind  in  their  feelings,  and  beneficent  in  their  conduct.  Even  the 
heathen,  the  Apostle  teaches  us,  do  by  nature  the  things  of  the 
law.  They  are  more  or  less  under  the  dominion  of  conscience, 
which  approves  or  disapproves  their  moral  conduct.  All  this  is 
perfectly  consistent  with  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  total  depravity, 
which  includes  the  entire  absence  of  holiness  ;  the  want  of  due 
apprehensions  of  the  divine  perfections,  and  of  our  relation  to  God 


234  PART  11.   ch.  vni.  — sin. 

as  our  Creator,  Preserver,  Benefactor,  Governor,  and  Redeemer. 
There  is  common  to  all  men  a  total  alienation  of  the  soul  from  God 
so  that  no  unrenewed  man  either  understands  or  seeks  after  God  ; 
no  such  man  ever  makes  God  his  portion,  or  God's  glory  the  end 
of  his  being.  The  apostasy  from  God  is  total  or  complete.  All 
men  worship  and  serve  the  creature  rather  than,  and  more  than  the 
Creator.  They  are  all  therefore  declared  in  Scriptui'e  to  be  spirit- 
ually dead.  They  are  destitute  of  any  principle  of  spiritual  life. 
The  dreadful  extent  and  depth  of  this  corruption  of  our  nature  are 
proved, — 

1.  By  its  fruits  ;  by  the  fearful  prevalence  of  the  sins  of  the 
flesh,  of  sins  of  violence,  of  the  sins  of  the  heart,  as  pride, 
envy,  and  malice  ;  of  the  sins  of  the  tongue,  as  slander  and  deceit; 
of  the  sins  of  ii'religion,  of  ingratitude,  profanity,  and  blasphemy  ; 
which  have  marked  the  whole  history  of  our  race,  and  which  still 
distinguishes  the  state  of  the  whole  world. 

2.  By  the  consideration  that  the  claims  of  God  on  our  supreme 
reverence,  love,  and  obedience,  which  are  habitually  and  universally 
disregarded  by  unrenewed  men,  are  infinitely  great.  That  is,  they 
are  so  great  that  they  cannot  be  imagined  to  be  greatei\  These 
claims  are  not  only  ignored  in  times  of  excitement  and  passion,  but 
habitually  and  constantly.  Men  live  without  God.  They  are,  says 
the  Apostle,  Atheists.  This  alienation  from  God  is  so  great  and  so 
universal,  that  the  Scriptures  say  that  men  are  the  enemies  of  God  ; 
that  the  carnal  mind,  i.  e.,  that  state  of  mind  which  belongs  to  all 
men  in  their  natural  state,  is  enmity  against  God.  This  is  proved 
not  only  by  neglect  and  di3o!)3dience,  but  also  by  direct  rebellion 
against  his  authority,  when  in  his  providence  he  takes  away  our 
idols  ;  or  when  his  law,  with  its  inexorable  demands  and  its  fearful 
penalty,  is  sent  home  upon  the  conscience,  and  God  is  seen  to  be 
a  consuming  fire. 

3.  A  third  proof  of  the  dreadful  evil  of  this  hereditary  cor- 
ruption is  seen  in  the  universal  rejection  of  Christ  by  those 
whom  He  came  to  save.  He  is  in  himself  the  chief  among 
ten  thousand,  and  altogether  lovely ;  uniting  in  his  own  per- 
son all  the  perfections  of  the  Godhead,  and  all  the  excellences 
of  humanity.  His  mission  was  one  of  love,  of  a  loA'e  utterly  in- 
comprehensible, unmerited,  immutable,  and  infinite.  Through  love 
He  not  only  humbled  himself  to  be  born  of  a  woman,  and  to  be 
made  under  the  law,  but  to  live  a  life  of  poverty,  sorrow,  and  per- 
secution ;  to  endure  inconceivably  great  sufferings  for  our  sakes, 
and  finally  to  bear  our  sins  in   his  own  body  on  the  tree.     He  has 


§  13.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  235 

rendered  it  possible  for  God  to  be  just  and  yet  justify  the  ungodly. 
He  therefore  offers  blessings  of  infinite  value,  without  money  and 
without  price,  to  all  who  will  accept  them.  He  has  secured,  and 
offers  to  us  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification,  and  redemption  ; 
to  make  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God,  and  to  exalt  us  to  an  un- 
ending state  of  inconceivable  glory  and  blessedness.  Notwithstand- 
ing all  this  ;  notwithstanding  the  divine  excellence  of  his  person, 
the  greatness  of  his  love,  the  depth  of  his  sufferings,  and  the  value 
of  the  blessings  which  He  has  provided,  and  Avithout  which  we 
must  perish  eternally,  men  universally,  when  left  to  themselves, 
reject  Him.  He  came  to  his  own  and  his  own  received  Him  not. 
The  world  hated,  and  still  hates  Him  ;  will  not  recognize  Him  as 
their  God  and  Saviour ;  will  not  accept  of  his  offers  ;  will  neither 
love  nor  serve  Him.  The  conduct  of  men  towards  Christ  is  the 
clearest  proof  of  the  apostasy  of  our  race,  and  of  the  depth  of  the 
depravity  into  which  they  are  sunk  ;  and,  so  far  as  the  liearers  of 
the  gospel  are  concerned,  is  the  great  ground  of  their  condemnation. 
All  other  grounds  seem  merged  into  this,  for  our  Lord  says,  that 
men  are  condemned  because  they  do  not  believe  in  the  only  begot- 
ten Son  of  God.  And  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  the  mouth  of  the  Apos- 
tle, says,  "  If  any  man  love  not  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  let  him  be 
anathema  maranatha  ;  "  a  sentence  which  will  be  ratified  in  the  day 
of  judgment  by  every  rational  creature,  fallen  and  unfallen,  in  the 
universe. 

The  Sinfulness  of  Men  Incorrigible. 

4.  Another  proof  of  the  point  under  consideration  is  found  in 
the  incorrigible  nature  of  original  sin.  It  is,  so  far  as  we  are  con- 
cerned, an  incurable  malady.  Men  are  not  so  besotted  even  by 
the  fall  as  to  lose  their  moral  nature.  They  know  that  sin  is  an 
evil,  and  that  it  exposes  them  to  the  righteous  judgment  of  God. 
From  the  beginning  of  the  world,  therefore,  they  have  tried  not 
only  to  expiate,  but  also  to  destroy  it.  They  have  resorted  to  all 
means  possible  to  them  for  this  purpose.  They  have  tried  the 
resources  of  philosophy  and  of  moral  culture.  They  have  with- 
drawn from  the  contaminating  society  of  their  fellow-men.  They 
have  summoned  all  the  energies  of  their  nature,  and  all  the  powers 
of  their  will.  They  have  subjected  themselves  to  the  most  painful 
acts  of  self-denial,  to  ascetic  observances  in  all  their  forms.  The 
only  result  of  these  efforts  has  been  that  these  anchorites  have  be- 
come like  whitened  sepulchres,  which  appear  outwardly  beautiful, 
while  within  they  are  filled  with  dead  men's  bones  and  all  unclean- 
ness.     Men  have  been  slow  to  learn  what  our  Lord  teaches,  that 


236  PART  n.   Ch.  vm.  — sin. 

it  is  impossible  to  make  the  fruit  good  until  the  tree  is  good.     An 
evil,  however,  which  is  so  indestructible  must  be  very  great. 

Argument  from,  the  Experience  of  God's  People. 

5.  We  may  appeal  on  this  subject  to  the  experience  of  God's 
people  in  every  age  and  in  every  part  of  the  world.  In  no  one 
respect  has  that  experience  been  more  uniform,  than  in  the  con- 
viction of  their  depravity  in  the  sight  of  an  infinitely  Holy  God. 
The  patriarch  Job,  represented  as  the  best  man  of  his  generation, 
placed  his  hand  upon  his  mouth,  and  his  mouth  in  the  dust  before 
God,  and  declared  that  he  abhorred  himself,  and  repented  in  dust 
and  ashes.  David's  Penitential  Psalms  are  filled  not  only  with 
the  confessions  of  sin,  but  also  with  the  avowals  of  his  deep  deprav- 
ity in  the  sight  of  God.  Isaiah  cried  out.  Woe  is  me  !  I  am  a 
man  of  unclean  lips,  and  I  dwell  among  a  people  of  unclean  lips. 
The  ancient  prophets,  even  when  sanctified  from  the  womb,  pro- 
nounced their  own  righteousnesses  as  filthy  rags.  What  is  said 
of  the  body  politic  is  everywhere  represented  as  true  of  the  indi- 
vidual man.  The  whole  head  is  sick,  and  the  whole  heart  faint. 
From  the  sole  of  the  foot,  even  unto  the  head,  there  is  no 
soundness  in  it ;  but  wounds,  and  bruises,  and  putrefying  sores. 
In  the  New  Testament  the  sacred  writers  evince  the  same  deep 
sense  of  their  own  sinfulness,  and  strong  conviction  of  tiie  sinful- 
ness of  the  race  to  which  they  belong.  Paul  speaks  of  himself  as 
the  chief  of  sinners.  He  complains  that  he  was  carnal,  sold  under 
sin.  He  groans  under  the  burden  of  an  evil  nature,  saying,  O, 
wretched  man  that  I  am,  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of 
this  death.  From  the  days  of  the  Apostles  to  the  present  time, 
there  has  been  no  diversity  as  to  this  point  in  the  experience  of 
Christians.  There  is  no  disposition  ever  evinced  by  them  to  palli- 
ate or  excuse  their  sinfulness  before  God.  They  uniformly  and 
everywhere,  and  just  in  proportion  to  their  holiness,  humble  them- 
selves under  a  sense  of  their  guilt  and  pollution,  and  abhor  them- 
selves repenting  in  dust  and  ashes.  This  is  not  an  irrational,  nor  is 
it  an  exaggerated  experience.  It  is  the  natural  effect  of  the  appre- 
hension of  the  truth  ;  of  even  a  partial  discernment  of  the  lioliness 
of  God,  of  the  spirituality  of  the  law,  and  of  the  want  of  conform- 
ity to  that  divine  standard.  There  is  always  connected  with  this 
experience  of  sin,  the  conviction  that  our  sense  of  its  evil  and  its 
power  over  us,  and  consequently  of  our  guilt  and  pollution,  is  alto- 
gether inadequate.  It  is  always  a  part  of  the  believer's  burden, 
that  he  feels  less  than  his  reason  and  conscience,  enlightened  by  the 


§  13.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  237 

Scriptures,  teach  him  he  ouglit  to  feel  of  his  moral  corruption  and 
degradation. 

6.  It  need  scarcely  be  added,  that  what  the  Scriptures  so  man- 
ifestly teach  indirectly  of  the  depth  of  the  corruption  of  our  fallen 
nature,  they  teach  also  by  direct  assertion.  The  human  heart  is 
pronounced  deceitful  above  all  things,  and  desperately  wicked. 
Even  in  the  beginning  (Gen.  vi.  5,  6),  it  was  said,  "  God  saw  that 
the  wickedness  of  man  was  great  in  the  earth,  and  that  every  im- 
agination of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually." 
Job  XV.  14-16,  "  What  is  man,  that  he  should  be  clean  ?  And  he 
which  is  born  of  a  woman,  that  he  should  be  righteous?  Behold, 
he  putteth  no  trust  in  his  saints  ;  yea,  the  heavens  are  not  clean  in 
his  sight.  How  much  more  abominable  and  filthy  is  man,  which 
drinketh  iniquity  like  water."  Eccl,  ix.  3,  "  The  heart  of  the  sons 
of  men  is  full  of  evil,  and  madness  is  in  their  heart  while  they  live, 
and  after  that  they  go  to  the  dead."  With  such  passages  the  Word 
of  God  is  filled.  It  in  the  most  explicit  terms  pronounces  the  deg- 
radation and  moral  corruption  of  man  consequent  on  the  fall,  to  be 
a  total  apostasy  from  God  ;  a  state  of  spiritual  death,  as  implying 
the  entire  absence  of  any  true  holiness. 

Third  Argument  from  the  early  Manifestation  of  Sin. 

A  third  great  fact  of  Scripture  and  experience  on  this  subject  is 
the  early  manifestation  of  sin.  As  soon  as  a  child  is  capable  of 
moral  action,  it  gives  evidence  of  a  perverted  moral  character. 
We  not  only  see  the  manifestations  of  anger,  malice,  selfishness, 
envy,  pride,  and  other  evil  dispositions,  but  the  whole  development 
of  the  soul  is  toward  the  world.  The  soul  of  a  child  turns  by  an 
inward  law  from  God  to  the  creature,  from  the  things  that  are  un- 
seen and  eternal  to  the  things  that  are  seen  and  temporal.  It  is  in 
its  earliest  manifestations,  worldly,  of  the  earth,  earthy.  As  this 
is  the  testimony  of  universal  experience,  so  also  it  is  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Bible.  Job  xi.  12,  "  Man  "  is  "  born  like  a  wild  ass's 
colt."  Ps.  Iviii.  3,  "  The  wicked  are  estranged  from  the  womb  ; 
they  go  astray  as  soon  as  they  be  born,  speaking  lies."  Prov.  xxii. 
15,  "  Foolishness  (moral  evil)  is  bound  in  the  heart  of  a  child." 

These  three  undeniable  facts,  the  universality  of  sin  among  men, 
its  controlling  power,  and  its  early  manifestation,  are  clear  proof  of 
the  corruption  of  our  common  nature.  It  is  a  principle  of  judg- 
ment universally  recognized  and  acted  upon,  that  a  course  of  action 
in  any  creature,  rational  or  irrational,  which  is  universal  and  con- 
trolling, and  which  is  adopted  uniformly  from  the  beginning  of  its 


2B8  PART  n.   ch.  vni.  — sin. 

being,  determines  and  reveals  its  nature.  That  all  individuals  of 
certain  species  of  animals  live  on  prey  ;  that  all  the  individuals  of 
another  species  live  on  herbs ;  that  some  ai*e  amphibious,  and  others 
live  only  on  the  land  ;  some  are  gregarious,  others  solitary ;  some 
mild  and  docile,  others  ferocious  and  untamable  ;  not  under  certain 
circumstances  and  conditions,  but  always  and  everywhere,  under 
all  the  different  circumstances  of  their  being,  is  regarded  as  proof 
of  their  natural  constitution.  It  shows  what  they  are  by  nature, 
as  distinguished  from  what  they  are,  or  may  be  made  by  external 
circumstances  and  culture.  The  same  principle  is  applied  to  our 
judgments  of  men.  Whatever  is  variable  and  limited  in  its  man- 
ifestations ;  whatever  is  found  in  some  men  and  not  in  others,  we 
attribute  to  peculiar  and  limited  causes,  but  what  is  universal  and 
controlling  is  uniformly  referred  to  the  nature  of  man.  Some  of 
these  universally  manifested  modes  of  action  among  men  are  refer- 
rible  to  the  essential  attinbutes  of  their  nature,  as  reason  and  con- 
science. The  fact  that  all  men  perform  rational  actions  is  a  clear 
proof  that  they  are  rational  creatures  ;  and  the  fact  that  they  per- 
form moral  actions  is  proof  that  they  have  a  moral  nature.  Other 
universal  modes  of  action  are  referred  not  to  the  essential  attributes 
of  human  nature,  but  to  its  present  abiding  state.  That  all  men 
seek  ease  and  self-indulgence  and  prefer  themselves  to  others,  is  not 
to  be  attributed  to  our  nature  as  men,  but  to  our  present  state.  As 
the  fact  that  all  men  perform  moral  actions  is  proof  that  they  have 
a  moral  nature,  so  the  fact  that  such  moral  action  is  always  evil,  or 
that  all  men  sin  from  the  earliest  development  of  their  powers,  is  a 
proof  that  their  moral  nature  is  depraved.  It  is  utterly  inconsist- 
ent with  all  just  ideas  of  God  that  He  created  man  with  a  nature 
which  with  absolute  uniformity  leads  him  to  sin  and  destruction  ; 
or  that  He  placed  him  in  circumstances  which  inevitably  secure  his 
ruin.  The  present  state  of  human  nature  cannot  therefore  be  its 
normal  and  original  condition.  We  are  a  fallen  race.  Our  nature 
has  become  corrupted  by  our  apostasy  from  God,  and  therefore 
every  imagination  (z.  «.,  every  exercise)  of  the  thoughts  of  man's 
heart  is  only  evil  continually.  See  also  Gen.  viii.  21.  This  is  the 
Scriptural  and  the  only  rational  solution  of  the  undeniable  fact  of 
the  deep,  universal,  and  early  manifested  sinfulness  of  men  in  all 
ages,  of  every  class,  and  in  every  part  of  the  world. 

Evasions  of  the  Foregoing  Arguments. 

The  methods  adopted  by  those  who  deny  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin,  to  accmmt  for  the  universality  of  sin,  are  in  the  highest  degree 
unsatisfactory.  , 


§13.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  239 

1.  It  is  not  necessary  here  to  refer  to  the  theories  which  get 
over  this  great  difficulty  either  by  denying  the  existence  of  sin,  or 
by  extenuating  its  evil  nature,  so  that  the  difficulty  ceases  to  exist. 
If  there  be  really  no  such  evil  as  sin,  there  is  no  sin  to  account  for. 
But  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  sin,  of  its  universality  and  of  its 
power,  is  too  palpable  and  too  much  a  matter  of  consciousness  to 
admit  of  being  denied  or  ignored. 

2.  Others  contend  that  we  have  in  the  free  agency  of  man  a 
sufficient  solution  of  the  universality  of  sin.  Men  can  sin  ;  they 
choose  to  sin,  and  no  further  reason  for  the  fact  need  be  demanded. 
If  Adam  sinned  without  an  antecedent  corrupt  nature,  why,  it  is 
asked,  must  corruption  of  nature  be  assumed  to  account  for  the 
fact  that  other  men  sin  ?  A  uniform  effect,  however,  demands  a 
uniform  cause.  That  a  man  can  walk  is  no  adequate  reason  why  he 
always  walks  in  one  direction.  A  man  may  exercise  his  faculties 
to  attain  one  object  or  another ;  the  fact  that  he  does  devote  them 
through  a  long  life  to  the  acquisition  of  wealth  is  not  accounted  for 
by  saying  that  he  is  a  free  agent.  The  question  is,  Why  his  free 
agency  is  always  exercised  in  one  particular  direction.  The  fact, 
therefore,  that  men  are  free  agents  is  no  solution  for  the  universal 
sinfulness  and  total  apostasy  of  our  race  from  God. 

3.  Others  seek  in  the  order  of  development  of  the  constituent 
elements  of  our  nature,  an  explanation  of  the  fact  in  question. 
We  are  so  constituted  that  the  sensuous  faculties  are  called  into 
exercise  before  the  higher  powers  of  reason  and  conscience.  The 
former  therefore  attain  an  undue  ascendency,  and  lead  the  child  and 
the  man  to  obey  the  lower  instincts  of  his  nature,  when  he  should 
be  guided  by  his  higher  faculties.  But,  in  the  first  place,  this  is 
altogether  an  inadequate  conception  of  our  hereditary  depravity. 
It  does  not  consist  exclusively  or  principally  in  the  ascendency  of 
the  flesh  (in  the  limited  sense  of  that  word)  over  the  Spirit.  It  is 
a  far  deeper  and  more  radical  evil.  It  is  spiritual  death,  according 
to  the  express  declarations  of  the  Scriptures.  And,  in  the  second 
place,  it  cannot  be  the  normal  condition  of  man  that  his  natural 
faculties  should  develop  in  such  order  as  inevitably  and  universally 
to  lead  to  his  moral  degradation  and  ruin.  And,  in  the  third  place, 
this  theory  relieves  no  difficulties  while  it  accounts  for  no  facts.  It 
is  as  hard  to  reconcile  with  the  justice  and  goodness  of  God  that 
men  should  be  born  with  a  nature  so  constituted  as  certainly  to 
lead  them  to  sin,  as  that  they  should  be  born  in  a  state  of  sin.  It 
denies  any  fiiir  probation  to  the  race.  According  to  the  Scriptures 
and  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  mankind  had  not  only  a  fair  but  a 


240  PART  II.   Ch.  viii.  — sin. 

favourable  probation  in  Adam,  who  stood  for  them  in  the  maturity 
and  full  perfection  of  his  nature  ;  and  with  every  facility,  motive, 
and  consideration  adapted  to  secure  his  fidelity.  This  is  far  easier 
of  belief  than  the  assumption  that  God  places  the  child  in  the  first 
dawn  of  reason  on  its  probation  for  eternity,  with  a  nature  already 
perverted,  and  under  circumstances  which  in  every  case  infallibly 
lead  to  its  destruction.  The  only  solution  therefore  which  at  all 
meets  the  case  is  the  Scriptural  doctrine  that  all  mankind  fell  in 
Adam's  first  transgression,  and  bearing  the  penalty  of  his  sin,  they 
come  into  the  world  in  a  state  of  spiritual  death,  the  evidence  of 
which  is  seen  and  felt  in  the  universality,  the  controlling  power, 
and  the  early  manifestation  of  sin. 

The  Scriptures  expressly  Teach  the  Doctrine. 

The  Scriptures  not  only  indirectly  teach  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin,  or  of  the  hereditary,  sinful  corruption  of  our  nature  as  de- 
rived from  Adam,  by  teaching,  as  we  have  seen,  the  universal  and 
total  depravity  of  our  race,  but  they  directly  assert  the  doctrine. 
They  not  only  teach  expressly  that  men  sin  universally  and  from 
the  first  dawn  of  their  being,  but  they  also  assert  that  the  heart  of 
man  is  evil.  It  is  declared  to  be  "  Deceitful  above  all  things,  and 
desperately  wicked  :  Who  can  know  it  ?  "  (Jer.  xvii.  9.)  "  The 
heart  of  the  sons  of  men  is  fully  set  in  them  to  do  evil."  (Eccl. 
viii.  11.)  Every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  (man's)  heart 
is  only  evil."  (Gen.  vi.  5)  ;  or  as  it  is  in  Gen.  viii.  21,  "  The 
imagination  of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his  youth."  By  heart  in 
Scriptural  language  is  meant  the  man  himself;  the  soul  ;  that 
which  is  the  seat  and  source  of  life.  It  is  that  which  thinks,  feels, 
desires,  and  wills.  It  is  that  out  of  which  good  or  evil  thoughts, 
desires,  and  purposes  proceed.  It  never  signifies  a  mere  act,  or  a 
transient  state  of  the  soul.  It  is  that  which  is  abiding,  which  de- 
termines character.  It  bears  the  same  relation  to  acts  that  the  soil 
does  to  its  productions.  As  a  good  soil  brings  forth  herbs  suited 
for  man  and  beast,  and  an  evil  soil  brings  forth  briars  and  thorns, 
so  we  are  told  that  the  human  heart  (human  nature  in  its  present 
state),  is  proved  to  be  evil  by  the  prolific  crop  of  sins  which  it 
everywhere  and  always  produces.  Still  more  distinctly  is  this 
doctrine  taught  in  Matt.  vii.  16-19,  where  our  Lord  says  that  men 
are  known  by  their  fruits.  "  Do  men  gather  grapes  of  thorns,  or 
figs  of  thistles  ?  Even  so  every  good  tree  bringeth  forth  good 
fruit ;  but  a  corrupt  tree  bringeth  forth  evil  fruit.  A  good  tree 
cannot  bring  forth  evil  fruit,  neither  can  a  corrupt  tree  bring  forth 


§  13.]  ORIGINAL   Sm.  241 

good  fruit."  And  again,  in  Matt.  xii.  33,  "  Either  make  the  tree 
good  and  his  fruit  good,  or  else  make  the  tree  corrupt  and  liis  fruit 
corrupt :  for  the  tree  is  known  by  his  fruit."  The  very  pith  and 
point  of  these  instructions  is,  that  moral  acts  are  a  revelation  of 
moral  character.  They  do  not  constitute  it,  but  simply  manifest 
what  it  is.  The  fruit  of  a  tree  reveals  the  nature  of  the  tree.  It 
does  not  make  that  nature,  but  simply  proves  what  it  is.  So  in  the 
case  of  man,  his  moral  exercises,  his  thoughts  and  feelings,  as  well 
as  his  external  acts,  are  determined  by  an  internal  cause.  There 
is  something  in  the  nature  of  the  man  distinct  from  his  acts  and 
anterior  to  them,  which  determines  his  conduct  (^i.  e.,  all  his  con- 
scious exercises),  to  be  either  good  or  evil.  If  men  are  universally 
sinful,  it  is,  according  to  our  Lord's  doctrine,  proof  positive  that 
their  nature  is  evil ;  as  much  so  as  corrupt  fruit  proves  the  tree 
to  be  corrupt.  When  therefore  the  Scriptures  assert  that  the  heart 
of  man  is  "  desperately  wicked,"  they  assert  precisely  what  the 
Church  means  when  she  asserts  our  nature  to  be  depraved.  Neither 
the  word,  heart,  nor  nature,  in  such  connections  means  substance 
or  essence,  but  natural  disposition.  The  Avords  express  a  quality 
as  distinguished  from  an  essential  attribute  or  property.  Even 
when  we  speak  of  the  nature  of  a  tree,  we  do  not  mean  its  essence, 
but  its  quality.  Something  which  can  be  modified  or  changed 
without  a  change  of  substance.  Thus  our  Lord  speaks  of  making  a 
tree  good,  or  making  it  evil.  The  explanation  of  the  Scriptural 
meaning  of  the  word  heart  given  above  is  confirmed  by  analogous 
and  synonymous  forms  of  expression  used  in  the  Bible.  What  is 
sometimes  designated  as  an  evil  heart  is  called  "  the  old  man,"  "  a 
law  of  sin  in  our  members,"  "  the  flesh,"  "  the  carnal  mind,"  etc. 
And  on  the  other  hand,  what  is  called  "a  new  heart,"  is  called 
"the  new  man,"  "  a  new  creature"  (or  nature),  "the  law  of  the 
Spirit,"  "  the  spiritual  mind,"  etc.  All  these  terms  and  phrases 
designate  what  is  inherent,  immanent,  and  abiding,  as  opposed  to 
what  is  transient  and  voluntary.  The  former  class  of  terms  is  used 
to  describe  the  nature  of  man  before  it  is  regenerated,  and  the 
other  to  describe  the  change  consequent  on  regeneration.  The 
Scriptures,  therefore,  in  declaring  the  heart  of  man  to  be  deceitful 
and  desperately  wicked,  and  its  imaginations  or  exercises  to  be  onlv 
evil  continually,  assert  in  direct  terms  the  Church  doctrine  of  orig- 
inal sin. 

The  Psalmist  also  directly  asserts  this  doctrine  when  he  savs 
(Ps.  li.  5),  "  Behold  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my 
mother  conceive  me."     In  the  preceding  verses  he  had  confessed 

VOL.   II.  16 


242  PART  n.   Ch.  viil  — sin. 

his  actual  sins  ;  and  lie  here  humbles  himself  still  more  completely 
before  God  by  acknowledging  his  innate,  hereditary  depravity  ; 
a  depravity  which  he  did  not  regard  as  a  mere  weakness,  or 
inclination  to  evil,  but  which  he  pronounces  iniquity  and  sin.  To 
this  inherent,  hereditary  corruption  he  refers  in  the  subsequent 
parts  of  the  Psalm  as  his  chief  burden  from  which  he  most  earnestly 
desired  to  be  delivered.  "  Behold,  thou  desirest  truth  in  the 
inward  parts  ;  and  in  the  hidden  part  shalt  thou  make  me  to  know 
wisdom.     Purge  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean  ;  wash  me, 

and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow Create  in  me  a  clean  heart, 

O  God,  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me."  It  was  his  inward 
pai'ts,  his  interior  nature,  which  had  been  shapen  in  iniquity  and 
conceived  in  sin,  which  he  prayed  might  be  purified  and  renewed. 
The  whole  spirit  of  this  Psalm  and  the  connection  in  which  the 
words  of  the  fifth  verse  occur,  have  constrained  the  great  majority 
of  commentators  and  readers  of  the  Scripture  to  recognize  in  this 
passage  a  direct  affirmation  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Of 
course  no  doctrine  rests  on  any  one  isolated  passage.  What  is 
taught  in  one  place  is  sure  to  be  assumed  or  asserted  in  other  places. 
What  David  says  of  himself  as  born  in  sin  is  confirmed  by  other 
representations  of  Scripture,  which  show  that  what  was  true  of 
him  is  no  less  true  of  all  mankind.  Thus  (Job  xiv.  4),  "  Who 
can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean."  (xy.  14),  "  What 
is  man  that  he  should  be  clean  ?  and  he  which  is  born  of  a  woman, 
that  he  should  be  righteous  ?  "  Thus  also  our  Lord  says  (John 
iii.  6),  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh."  This  clearly 
means  that.  That  which  is  born  of  corrupt  parents  is  itself  cor- 
rupt ;  and  is  corrupt  in  virtue  of  its  descent  or  derivation.  This 
is  plain,  (1.)  From  the  common  usage  of  the  word  flesh  in  a 
religious  sense  in  the  Scriptures,  Besides  the  primary  and  sec- 
ondary meanings  of  the  word  it  is  familiarly  used  in  the  Bible  to 
designate  our  fallen  and  corrupt  nature.  Hence  to  be  "  in  the 
flesh"  is  to  be  in  a  natural,  unrenewed  state;  the  works  of  the 
flesh,  are  works  springing  from  a  corrupt  nature  ;  to  walk  after  the 
flesh,  is  to  live  under  the  controlling  influence  of  a  sinful  nature. 
Hence  to  be  carnal,  or  carnally  minded,  is  to  be  corrupt,  or,  as 
Paul  explains  it,  sold  under,  a  slave  to  sin.  (2.)  Because  the  flesh 
is  here  opposed  to  the  Spirit.  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is 
flesli ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  As  the  latter 
member  of  this  verse  undoubtedly  means  that.  That  which  is  derived 
from  the  Holy  Spirit  is  holy,  or  conformed  to  the  nature  of  the 
Holy 'Spirit;  the  former  member  must  mean  that.  That  which  is 


§  13.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  243 

derived  from  an  evil  source  is  itself  evil.  A  child  born  of  fallen 
parents  derives  from  them  a  fallen,  corrupt  nature.  (3.)  This 
interpretation  is  demanded  by  the  context.  Our  Lord  is  assigning 
the  reason  for  the  necessity  of  regeneration  or  spiritual  birth.  That 
reason  is,  the  derivation  of  a  corrupt  nature  by  our  natural  birth. 
It  is  because  we  are  born  in  sin  that  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  universally  and  absolutely  necessary  to  our  salvation. 

Another  passage  equally  decisive  is  Eph.  ii.  3  :  "  We  also" 
(t.  e.f  we  Jews  as  well  as  the  Gentiles)  "  were  by  nature  the  chil- 
dren of  wrath,  even  as  others."  Children  of  wrath,  according  to 
a  familiar  Hebrew  idiom,  means  the  objects  of  wrath.  We,  says 
the  Apostle,  as  well  as  other  men,  are  the  objects  of  the  divine 
wrath.  That  is,  under  condemnation,  justly  exposed  to  his  displeas- 
ure. This  exposure  to  the  wrath  of  God,  as  He  teaches,  is  not  due 
exclusively  to  our  sinful  conduct,  it  is  the  condition  in  which  we 
were  born.  We  are  bi/  nature  the  children  of  wrath.  The  word 
nature  in  such  forms  of  speech  always  stands  opposed  to  what  is 
acquired,  or  superinduced,  or  to  what  is  due  to  ah  extra  influence 
or  inward  development.  Paul  says  that  he  and  Peter  were  by 
nature  Jews,  i.  e.,  they  were  Jews  by  birth,  not  by  proselytism. 
He  says  the  Gentiles  do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  law  ;  i.  e.,  in 
virtue  of  their  internal  constitution,  not  by  external  instruction. 
The  gods  of  the  heathen,  he  says,  are  by  nature  no  gods.  They 
are  such  only  in  the  opinions  of  men.  In  classic  literature  as  in 
ordinary  language,  to  say  that  men  are  by  nature  proud,  or  cruel, 
or  just,  always  means  that  the  predicate  is  due  to  them  in  virtue 
of  their  natural  constitution  or  condition,  and  not  simply  on  account 
of  their  conduct  or  acquired  character.  The  dative  ^uo-ct  in  this 
passage  does  not  mean  on  account  of,  because  c^vo-t?  means  simply 
nature,  whether  good  or  bad.  Paul  does  not  say  directly  that  it  is 
"on  account  of  our  (corrupt)  nature  we  are  the  children  of  wrath," 
which  interpretation  requires  the  idea  expressed  by  the  word 
corrupt  to  be  introduced  into  the  text.  He  simply  asserts  that  we 
are  the  children  of  wrath  by  nature ;  that  is,  as  we  were  born. 
We  are  born  in  a  state  of  sin  and  condemnation.  And  this  is 
the  Church  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Our  natural  condition  is  not 
merely  a  condition  of  physical  weakness,  or  of  proneness  to  sin,  or 
of  subjection  to  evil  dispositions,  which,  if  cherished,  become  sinful ; 
but  we  are  born  in  a  state  of  sin.  Rueckert,  a  rationalistic  commen- 
tator, says  in  reference  to  this  passage  :  ^  "It  is  perfectly  evident, 
from  Rom.  v.  12—20,  that  Paul  was  far  from  being  opposed  to  the 

1  Der  Brief  Pauli  an  die  Epkeser.    Leipzig,  1834:,  p.  88. 


244  PART  n.     Cn.   VIII.— SIN. 

view  expressed  in  Ps.  li.  7,  that  men  are  born  sinners  ;  and  as  we 
interpret  for  no  system,  so  we  will  not  attempt  to  deny  that  the 
thought,  '  We  were  born  children  of  wrath,'  i.  e.,  such  as  we  were 
from  our  birth  we  were  exposed  to  the  divine  wratli,  is  the  true 
sense  of  these  words." 

The  Bible  Represents  Men  as  Spiritually  Dead. 

Another  way  in  which  the  Scriptures  clearly  teach  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin  is  to  be  found  in  the  passages  in  which  they  describe 
the  natural  state  of  man  since  the  fall.  Men,  all  men,  men  of  eveiy 
nation,  of  every  age,  and  of  every  condition,  are  represented  as  spir- 
itually dead.  The  natural  man,  man  as  he  is  by  nature,  is  destitute 
of  the  life  of  God,  i.  e.,  of  spiritual  life.  His  understanding  is 
darkness,  so  that  he  does  not  know  or  receive  the  things  of  God. 
He  is  not  susceptible  of  impression  from  the  realities  of  the  spirit- 
ual world.  He  is  as  insensible  to  them  as  a  dead  man  to  the  things 
of  this  world.  He  is  alienated  from  God,  and  utterly  unable  to 
deliver  himself  from  this  state  of  corruption  and  misery.  Those, 
and  those  only,  are  represented  as  delivered  from  this  state  in  which 
men  are  born,  who  are  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost;  who  are  quick- 
ened, or  made  alive  by  the  power  of  God,  and  who  are  therefore 
called  spiritual  as  governed  and  actuated  by  a  higher  principle  than 
any  which  belongs  to  our  fallen  nature.  "  The  natural  man,"  says 
the  Apostle  (that  is,  man  as  he  is  by  nature),  "  receiveth  not  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  of  God :  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him  : 
neither  can  he  know  them  ;  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned." 
(1  Cor.  ii.  14.)  "  You  hath  he  quickened  who  were  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins;"  and  not  only  you  Gentiles,  but  "even  us." 
when  dead  in  sins,  hath  God  "  quickened  together  with  Christ." 
(Eph.  ii.  1,  5.)  The  state  of  all  men,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  prior  to 
regeneration,  is  declared  to  be  a  state  of  spiritual  death.  In  Eph. 
iv.  17,  18,  this  natural  state  of  man  is  described  by  saying  of  the 
heathen  that  they  "  walk  in  the  vanity  of  their  mind  (i.  e.,  in  sin), 
having  the  understanding  darkened,  being  alienated  from  the  life 
of  God  through  the  ignorance  that  is  in  them,  because  of  the 
blindness  of  their  heart."  Man's  natural  state  is  one  of  darkness, 
of  Avhich  the  proximate  effect  is  ignorance  and  obduracy,  and 
consequent  alienation  from  God.  It  is  true  this  is  said  of  the 
heathen,  but  the  Apostle  constantly  teaches  that  what  is  true  of 
the  heathen  is  no  less  true  of  the  Jews  ;  for  there  is  no  difference, 
since  all  have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God.  With 
these  few  passages  the  whole  tenour  of  the  word  of  God  agrees. 


§  13.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  245 

Human   nature   in   its  present    state    is   always   and   everywhere 
described  as  thus  darkened  and  corrupted. 

Argument  from  the  Necessity  of  Redemption. 

Another  argument  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  is 
that  the  Bible  everywhere  teaches  that  all  men  need  redemption 
through  the  blood  of  Christ.  The  Scriptures  know  nothing  of  the 
salvation  of  any  of  the  human  family  otherwise  than  through  the 
redemption  which  is  in  Ciu'ist  Jesus.  This  is  so  plainly  the  doctrine 
of  the  Bible  that  it  never  has  been  questioned  in  the  Christian 
Church.  Infants  need  redemption  as  well  as  adults,  for  they 
also  are  included  in  the  covenant  of  grace.  But  redemption,  in 
the  Cinistian  sense  of  the  term,  is  deliverance  through  the  blood  of 
Christ,  from  the  power  and  consequences  of  sin.  Christ  came  to 
save  sinners.  He  saves  none  but  sinners.  If  He  saves  infants, 
infants  must  be  in  a  state  of  sin.  There  is  no  possibility  of 
avoiding  this  conclusion,  except  by  denying  one  or  the  other  of 
the  premises  from  which  it  is  drawn.  We  must  either  deny 
that  infants  are  saved  through  Christ,  which  is  such  a  thoroughly 
anti-Christian  sentiment,  that  it  has  scarcely  ever  been  avowed 
within  the  pale  of  the  Church  ;  or  we  must  deny  that  redemp- 
tion, in  the  Christian  sense  of  the  term,  includes  deliverance  from 
sin.  This  is  the  ground  taken  by  those  who  deny  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin,  and  yet  admit  that  infants  are  saved  through  Christ. 
Tiiey  hold  that  in  their  case  redemption  is  merely  preservation  from 
sin.  For  Christ's  sake,  or  through  his  intervention,  they  are  trans- 
ferred to  a  state  of  being  in  which  their  nature  develops  in  holiness. 
In  answer  to  this  evasion  it  is  enough  to  remark,  (1.)  That  it  is 
contrary  to  the  plain  and  universally  received  doctrine  of  the  Bible 
as  to  the  nature  of  the  work  of  Christ.  (2.)  That  this  view  super- 
sedes the  necessity  of  redemption  at  all.  The  Bible,  however, 
clearly  teaches  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  absolutely  necessary ; 
that  if  there  had  been  any  other  way  in  which  men  could  be  saved 
Christ  is  dead  in  vain.  (Gal.  ii.  21  ;  iii.  21.)  But,  according  to 
the  doctrine  in  question,  there  is  no  necessity  for  his  death.  If 
men  are  an  unfallen,  uncorrupted  race,  and  if  they  can  be  preserv^ed 
from  sin  by  a  mere  change  of  their  circumstances,  why  should  there 
be  the  costly  array  of  remedial  means,  the  incarnation,  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  the  Eternal  Son  of  God,  for  their  salvation.  It  is  per- 
fectly plain  that  the  whole  Scriptural  plan  of  redemption  is  founded 
on  the  apostasy  of  the  whole  human  race  from  God.  It  assumes 
that  men,  all  men,  infants  as  well  as  adults,  are  in  a  state  of  sin 


246  PART  n.  ch.  vni.  — sin. 

and  misery,  from  which  none  but  a  divine   Saviour  can  deliver 
them. 

Argument  from  the  Necessity  of  Regeneration. 

This  is  still  further  plain  from  what  the  Scriptures  teach  con- 
cerning the  necessity  of  regeneration.  By  regeneration  is  meant 
both  in  Scripture  and  in  the  language  of  the  Church,  the  renewincr 
of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  change  of  heart  or  of  nature  effected  bv 
the  power  of  the  Spirit,  by  which  the  soul  passes  from  a  state  of 
spiritual  death  into  a  state  of  spiritual  life.  It  is  that  chancre  from 
sin  to  holiness,  M'hich  our  Lord  pronounces  absolutely  essential  to 
salvation.  Sinners  only  need  regeneration.  Infants  need  regen- 
eration. Therefore  infants  are  in  a  state  of  sin.  The  only  point 
in  this  argument  which  requires  to  be  proved,  is  that  infants  need 
regeneration  in  the  sense  above  explained.  This,  however,  hardly 
admits  of  doubt.  (1.)  It  is  proved  by  the  language  of  the  Scrip- 
tures which  assert  that  all  men  must  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  in  order 
to  enter  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  expression  used,  is  absolutely 
universah  It  means  every  human  being  descended  from  Adam  by 
ordinary  generation.  No  exception  of  class,  tribe,  character,  or 
age  is  made  ;  and  we  are  not  authorized  to  make  any  such  ex- 
ception. But  besides,  as  remarked  above,  the  reason  assigned  for 
this  necessity  of  the  new  birth,  applies  to  infants  as  Avell  as  to 
adults.  All  who  are  born  of  the  flesh,  and  because  tliey  are  thus 
born,  our  Lord  says,  must  be  born  again.  (2.)  Infants  always 
have  been  included  with  their  parents  in  every  revelation  or  enact- 
ment of  the  covenant  of  grace.  The  promise  to  our  first  parents  of 
a  Redeemer,  concerned  their  children  as  well  as  themselves.  The 
covenant  with  Abraham  was  not  only  with  him,  but  also  with  his 
posterity,  infant  and  adult.  The  covenant  at  Mount  Sinai,  which 
as  Pavil  teaches,  included  the  covenant  of  grace,  was  solemnly  rat- 
ified with  the  people  and  with  their  "  little  ones."  The  Scriptures, 
therefore,  always  contemplate  children  from  their  birth  as  needing 
to  be  saved,  and  as  interested  in  the  plan  of  salvation  which  it  is 
the  great  design  of  the  Bible  to  reveal.  (3.)  Tin's  is  still  further 
evident  from  the  fact  that  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
circumcision  under  the  Old  dispensation,  and  baptism  under  the 
New,  was  applied  to  new-born  infants.  Circumcision  was  indeed 
a  sign  and  seal  of  the  national  covenant  between  God  and  the  He- 
brews as  a  nation.  That  is,  it  was  a  seal  of  those  promises  made 
to  Abraham,  and  afterwards  through  Moses,  which  related  to  the 
external  theocracy  or  Commonwealth  of  Israel.     But  nevertheless, 


§  13.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  247 

it  is  plain,  that  besides  these  national  promises,  there  was  also  the 
promise  of  redemption  made  to  Abraham,  which  promise,  the  Apos- 
tle expressly  says,  has  come  upon  us.  (Gal.  iii.  14.)  That  is,  we 
(all  believers)  are  included  in  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham. 
It  is  no  less  plain  tiiat  circumcision  was  the  sign  and  seal  of  that 
covenant.  This  is  clear,  because  the  Apostle  teaches  that  Abraham 
received  circumcision  as  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith.  That 
is,  it  was  the  seal  of  that  covenant  which  promised  and  secured 
righteousness  on  the  condition  of  faith.  It  is  also  plain  because 
the  Scriptures  teach  that  circumcision  had  a  spiritual  import.  It 
signified  inward  purification.  It  was  administered  in  order  to 
teach  men  that  those  who  received  the  rite,  needed  such  purifica- 
tion, and  that  this  great  blessing  was  promised  to  those  faithful  to 
the  covenant,  of  which  circumcision  was  the  seal.  Hence,  the 
Scriptures  speak  of  the  circumcision  of  the  heart ;  of  an  inward 
circumcision  effected  by  the  Spirit  as  distinguished  from  that  which 
was  outward  in  the  flesh.  Compare  Deut.  x.  16 ;  xxx.  6  ;  Ezek. 
xliv.  7  ;  Acts  vii.  51  ;  Rom.  ii.  28.  From  all  this  it  is  clear  that 
circumcision  could  not  be  administered  according  to  its  divinely 
constituted  design  to  any  who  did  not  need  the  circumcision  or 
regeneration  of  heart,  to  fit  them  for  the  presence  and  service  of 
God.  And  as  it  was  by  divine  command  administered  to  infants 
when  eight  days  old,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  in  the  sight 
of  God  such  infants  need  regeneration,  and  therefore  are  born  in 
sin. 

The  same  argument  obviously  applies  to  infant  baptism.  Bap- 
tism is  an  ordinance  instituted  by  Christ,  to  signify  and  seal  the 
purification  of  tlie  soul,  by  the  sprinkling  of  his  blood,  and  its  regen- 
eration by  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  can  therefore  be  properly  adminis- 
tered only  to  those  who  are  in  a  state  of  guilt  and  pollution.  It  is, 
however,  administered  to  infants,  and  therefore  infants  are  assumed 
to  need  pardon  and  sanctification.  This  is  the  argument  which 
Pelagius  and  his  followers,  more  than  all  others,  found  it  most 
difficult  to  answer.  They  could  not  deny  the  import  of  the  rite. 
They  could  not  deny  that  it  was  properly  administered  to  infants, 
and  yet  they  refused  to  admit  the  unavoidable  conclusion,  that  in- 
fants are  born  in  sin.  They  were  therefore  driven  to  the  unnat- 
ural evasion,  that  baptism  was  administered  to  infants,  not  on  the 
ground  of  their  present  state,  but  on  the  assumption  of  their  proba- 
ble future  condition.  They  were  not  sinners,  but  would  probably 
become  such,  and  thus  need  the  benefits  of  which  baptism  is  the 
sign  and  pledge.     Even  the  Council  of  Trent  found  it  necessary 


248  PART  n.     Ch.   VIII.  —  SIN. 

to  protest  against  such  a  manifest  perversion  of  a  solemn  sacra- 
ment, which  reduced  it  to  a  mockery.  The  form  of  baptism  as 
prescribed  by  Christ,  and  universally  adopted  by  the  Church,  sup- 
poses that  those  to  whom  the  sacrament  is  administered  are  sinners 
and  need  the  remission  of  sin  and  the  renewal  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Thus  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  is  inwrought  into  the  very  tex- 
ture of  Christianity,  and  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  institutions 
of  the  gospel. 

Argument  from  the  Universality  of  Death. 

Another  decisive  argument  on  this  subject,  is  drawn  from  the 
universality  of  death.  Death,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  is  a 
penal  evil.  It  presupposes  sin.  No  rational  moi'al  creature  is 
subject  to  death  except  on  account  of  sin.  Infants  die,  therefore 
infants  are  the  subjects  of  sin.  The  only  way  to  evade  this  argu- 
ment is  to  deny  that  death  is  a  penal  evil.  This  is  the  ground 
taken  by  those  who  reject  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  They  as- 
sert that  it  is  a  natural  evil,  flowing  from  the  original  constitution 
of  our  nature,  and  that  it  is  therefore  no  more  a  proof  that  all  men 
are  sinners,  than  the  death  of  brutes  is  a  proof  that  they  are  sin- 
ners. In  answer  to  this  objection,  it  is  obvious  to  remark  that  men 
are  not  brutes.  That  irrational  animals,  incapable  of  sin,  are  sub- 
ject to  death,  is  therefore  no  evidence  that  moral  creatures  may 
be  justly  subject  to  the  same  evil,  although  free  from  sin.  But,  in 
the  second  place,  what  is  of  far  more  weight,  the  objection  is  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  declarations  of  the  Word  of  God.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Bible,  death  in  the  case  of  man  is  a  punishment.  It  was 
threatened  against  Adam  as  the  penalty  of  transgression.  If  he 
had  not  sinned,  neither  had  he  died.  The  Apostle  expressly  de- 
clares that  death  is  the  wages  (or  punishment)  of  sin ;  and  death  is 
on  account  of  sin.  (Rom.  vi.  23  and  v.  12.)  He  not  only  asserts 
this  as  a  fact,  but  assumes  it  as  a  principle,  and  makes  it  the  foun- 
dation of  his  whole  argument  in  Rom.  v.  12-20.  His  doctrine 
as  there  stated  is,  where  there  is  no  law  there  is  no  sin.  And 
where  there  is  no  sin  there  is  no  punishment.  All  men  are  pun- 
ished, therefore  all  men  are  sinners.  That  all  men  are  punished, 
he  proves  from  the  fact  that  all  men  die.  Death  is  punishment. 
Death,  he  says,  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses.  It  reigns  even  over 
those  who  had  not  sinned  in  their  own  persons,  by  voluntary  trans- 
gression, as  Adam  did.  It  reigns  over  infants.  It  has  passed  ab- 
solutely on  all  men  because  all  are  sinners.  It  cannot  be  ques- 
tioned that  such  is  the  argument  of  the  Apostle  ;  neither  can  it  be 


§  13.]  ORIGINAL  sm.  249 

questioned  that  this  argument  is  founded  on  the  assumption  that 
death,  in  the  case  of  man,  is  a  penal  evil,  and  its  infliction  an  un- 
deniable proof  of  guilt.  \¥e  must,  therefore,  either  reject  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures,  or  we  must  admit  that  the  death  of 
infants  is  a  proof  of  their  sinfulness. 

Although  the  Apostle's  argument  as  above  stated  is  a  direct  proof 
of  original  sin  (or  inherent,  hereditary  corruption),  it  is  no  less  a 
proof,  as  urged  on  another  occasion,  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin.  Paul  does  argue,  in  Rom.  v.  12—20,  to  prove  that  as  in  our 
justification  the  righteousness  on  the  ground  of  which  we  are  ac- 
cepted is  not  subjectively  ours,  but  the  righteousness  of  another, 
even  Christ ;  so  the  primary  ground  of  our  condemnation  to  death 
is  the  sin  of  Adam,  something  outside  of  ourselves,  and  not  person- 
ally ours.  But  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  death  of  which 
he  speaks  in  accordance  with  the  uniform  usage  of  Scripture,  in 
such  connections,  is  the  death  of  a  man  ;  a  death  appropriate  to 
his  nature  as  a  moral  beino;  formed  in  the  imajre  of  God.  The 
death  threatened  to  Adam  was  not  the  mere  dissolution  of  his  body, 
but  spiritual  death,  the  loss  of  the  life  of  God.  The  physical  death 
of  infants  is  a  patent  proof  that  they  are  subject  to  the  penalty 
which  came  on  men  (which  entered  the  world  and  passed  on  all 
men)  on  account  of  one  man,  or  by  one  man's  disobedience.  And 
as  that  penalty  was  death  spiritual  as  well  as  the  dissolution  of  the 
jbody,  the  death  of  infants  is  a  Scriptural  and  decisive  proof  of  their 
being  born  destitute  of  original  righteousness  and  infected  with  a 
sinful  corruption  of  nature.  Their  physical  death  is  proof  that  they 
are  involved  in  the  penalty  the  principal  element  of  which  is  the 
spiritual  death  of  the  soul.  It  was  by  the  disobedience  of  one  man 
that  all  are  constituted  sinners,  not  only  by  imputation  (which  is 
true  and  most  important),  but  also  by  inherent  depravity :  as  it  is 
by  the  obedience  of  one  that  all  are  constituted  righteous,  not  only 
by  imputation  (which  also  is  true  and  vitally  important),  but  also 
by  the  consequent  renewing  of  their  nature  flowing  from  their 
reconciliation  to  God. 

Argument  from  the  Common  Consent  of  Christians. 

Finally,  it  is  fair,  on  this  subject,  to  appeal  to  the  faith  of  the 
Church  universal.  Protestants,  in  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  tradi- 
tion, and  in  asserting  that  the  Word  of  God  as  contained  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  is  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,  do  not  reject  the  authority  of  the  Church 
as  a  teacher.     They  do  not  isolate  themselves  from  the  great  com- 


250  PART  n.   Ch.  vni.  — sin. 

pany  of  the  faithful  in  all  ages,  and  set  up  a  new  faith.  They  hold 
that  Christ  promised  the  Holy  Spirit  to  lead  his  people  into  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth  ;  that  the  Spirit  does  dwell  as  a  teacher  in 
all  the  children  of  God,  and  that  tiiose  who  are  born  of  God  are 
thus  led  to  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  the  truth.  There  is  there- 
fore to  the  true  Church,  or  tlie  true  people  of  God,  but  one  faith,  as 
there  is  but  one  Lord  and  one  God  the  Father  of  all.  Any  doctrine, 
therefore,  which  can  be  proved  to  be  a  part  of  the  faith  (not  of  the 
external  and  visible  Church),  but  of  the  true  children  of  God  in  all 
ages  of  the  world,  must  be  true.  It  is  to  be  received  not  because 
it  is  thus  universally  believed,  but  because  its  being  universally 
believed  by  true  Christians  is  a  proof  that  it  is  taught  by  the  Spirit 
both  in  his  Word  and  in  the  hearts  of  his  people.  This  is  a  sound 
principle  recognized  by  all  Protestants.  This  universal  faith 
of  the  Church  is  not  to  be  sought  so  much  in  the  decisions  of 
ecclesiastical  councils,  as  in  the  formulas  of  devotion  which  have 
prevailed  among  the  people.  It  is,  as  often  remarked,  in  the  prayers, 
in  the  hymnology,  in  the  devotional  writings  which  true  believers 
make  the  channel  of  their  communion  with  God,  and  the  medium 
through  which  they  express  their  most  intimate  religious  convictions, 
that  we  must  look  for  the  universal  faith.  From  the  faith  of  God's 
people  no  man  can  separate  himself  without  forfeiting  the  commun- 
ion of  saints,  and  placing  himself  outside  of  the  pale  of  true  believers. 
If  these  things  be  admitted  we  must  admit  the  doctrine  of  original, 
sin.  That  doctrine  has  indeed  been  vai'iously  explained,  and  in 
many  cases  explained  away  by  theologians  and  by  councils,  but 
it  is  indelibly  impressed  on  the  faith  of  the  true  Church.  It  per- 
vades the  prayers,  the  worship,  and  the  institutions  of  the  Church. 
All  true  Christians  are  convinced  of  sin  ;  they  are  convinced  not 
only  of  individual  transgressions,  but  also  of  the  depravity  of  their 
heart  and  nature.  They  recognize  this  depravity  as  innate  and 
controlling.  They  groan  under  it  as  a  grievous  burden.  They 
know  that  they  are  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath.  Parents  bring 
their  children  to  Christ  to  be  washed  by  his  blood  and  renewed  by 
his  Spirit,  as  anxiously  as  mothers  crowded  around  our  Lord  when 
on  earth,  with  their  suffering  infants  that  they  might  be  healed  by 
his  grace  and  power.  Whatever  difficulties,  therefore,  may  attend 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  we  must  accept  it  as  clearly  taught  in 
the  Scriptures,  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  consciousness  and 
history,  and  sustained  by  the  faith  of  the  Church  universal. 


§  13.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  261 

Objections. 

The  objections  to  this  doctrine,  it  must  be  admitted,  are  many 
and  serious.  But  this  is  true  of  all  the  great  doctrines  of  religion, 
whether  natural  or  revealed.  Nor  are  such  difficulties  confined  to 
the  sphere  of  religion.  Our  knowledge  in  every  department  is 
limited,  and  in  a  great  measure  confined  to  isolated  facts.  We 
know  that  a  stone  falls  to  the  ground,  that  a  seed  germinates  and 
produces  a  plant  after  its  own  kind  ;  but  it  is  absolutely  impossible 
for  us  to  understand  how  these  familiar  effects  are  accomj)lished. 
We  know  that  God  is,  and  that  He  governs  all  his  creatures,  but 
we  do  not  know  how  his  effectual  controlling  agency  is  consistent 
with  the  free  agency  of  rational  beings.  We  know  that  sin  and 
misery  exist  in  the  world,  and  we  know  that  God  is  infinite  in 
power,  holiness,  and  benevolence.  How  to  reconcile  the  prevalence 
of  sin  with  the  character  of  God  we  know  not.  These  are  familiar 
and  universally  admitted  facts  as  well  in  philosophy  as  in  religion. 
A  thing  may  be,  and  often  certainly  is  true,  against  which  objections 
may  be  urged  which  no  man  is  able  to  answer.  There  are  two 
important  practical  principles  which  follow  from  the  facts  just  men- 
tioned. First,  that  it  is  not  a  sufficient  or-  a  rational  ground  for 
rejecting  any  well  authenticated  truth  that  we  are  not  able  to  free 
it  from  objections  or  difficulties.  And,  secondly,  any  objection 
against  a  religious  doctrine  is  to  be  regarded  as  sufficiently  answered 
if  it  can  be  shown  to  bear  with  equal  force  against  an  undeniable 
fact.  If  the  objection  is  not  a  rational  reason  for  denying  the  fact 
it  is  not  a  rational  reason  for  rejecting  the  doctrine.  This  is  the 
method  which  the  sacred  writers  adopt  in  vindicating  truth. 

It  will  be  seen  that  almost  all  the  objections  against  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin  are  in  conflict  with  one  or  the  other  of  the  principles 
just  mentioned.  Either  they  are  addressed  not  to  the  evidences 
of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  whether  derived  from  Scripture  or  from 
experience,  but  to  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  it  with  other  truths ; 
or  these  objections  are  insisted  upon  as  fatal  to  the  doctrine  when 
they  obviously  are  as  valid  against  the  facts  of  providence  as  they 
are  against  the  teachings  of  Scripture. 

The  Objection  that  Men  are  Responsible  only  for  their  Voluntary 

Acts. 

1.  The  most  obvious  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  is 
founded  on  the  assumption  that  nothing  can  have  moral  character 
except  voluntary  acts  and  the  states  of  mind  resulting  from  or  pro- 


252  PART  u.  ch.  vm.  — sen. 

ducecl  by  our  voluntary  agency,  and  which  are  subject  to  the  power 
of  the  will.  This  objection  rests  on  a  principle  which  has  already 
been  considered.  It  reaches  very  far.  If  it  be  sound,  then  there 
can  be  no  such  thing  as  concreated  holiness,  or  habitual  grace,  or 
innate,  inherent,  or  indwelling  sin.  But  we  have  already  seen, 
when  treating  of  the  nature  of  sin,  that  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
the  testimony  of  consciousness,  and  the  universal  judgment  of  men, 
the  moral  character  of  dispositions  depends  on  their  nature  and  not 
on  their  origin.  Adam  was  holy,  although  so  created.  Saints  are 
holy,  although  regenerated  and  sanctified  by  the  almighty  power 
of  God.  And  therefore  the  soul  is  truly  sinful  if  the  subject  of 
sinful  dispositions,  although  those  dispositions  should  be  innate  and 
entirely  beyond  the  control  of  the  will.  Here  it  will  be  seen  that 
the  objection  is  not  against  the  Scriptural  evidence  of  the  doctrine 
that  men  are  born  in  sin,  nor  against  the  testimony  of  facts  to  the 
truth  of  that  doctrine ;  but  it  is  founded  on  the  difficulty  of  recon- 
ciling the  doctrine  of  innate  sin  with  certain  assumed  principles  as 
to  the  nature  and  grounds  of  moral  obligation.  Whether  we  can 
refute  those  principles  or  not,  does  not  affect  the  truth  of  the  doc- 
trine. We  might  as  well  deny  all  prophecy  and  all  providence, 
because  we  cannot  reconcile  the  absolute  control  of  free  agents 
with  their  liberty.  If  the  assumed  moral  axiom  that  a  man  can  be 
responsible  only  for  his  own  acts,  conflicts  with  the  facts  of  experi- 
ence and  the  teachings  of  Scriptures,  the  rational  course  is  to  deny 
the  pretended  axiom,  and  not  to  reject  the  facts  with  which  it  is  in 
conflict.  The  Bible,  the  Church,  the  mass  of  mankind,  and  the 
conscience,  hold  a  man  responsible  for  his  character,  no  matter  how 
that  character  was  formed  or  whence  it  was  derived ;  and,  therefore, 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin  is  not  in  conflict  with  intuitive  moral 
truths. 

Objection  Founded  on  the  Justice  of  Grod. 

2.  It  is  objected  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  justice  of  God 
that  men  should  come  into  the  world  in  a  state  of  sin.  In  answer 
to  this  objection  it  maybe  remarked,  (1.)  That  whatever  God  does 
must  be  right.  If  He  permits  men  to  be  born  in  sin,  that  fact  must 
be  consistent  with  his  divine  perfection.  (2.)  It  is  a  fact  of  expe- 
rience no  less  than  a  doctrine  of  Scripture  that  men  are  either,  as 
the  Church  teaches,  born  in  a  state  of  sin  and  condemnation,  or, 
as  all  men  must  admit,  in  a  state  which  inevitably  leads  to  their 
becoming  sinful  and  miserable.  The  objection,  tlierefore,  bears 
against  a  providential  fact  as  much  as  against  a  Scriptural  doctrine. 
We  must  either  deny  God  or  admit  that  the  existence   and  univer- 


§  13.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  253 

sality  of  sin  among  men  is  compatible  with  his  nature  and  with  his 
government  of  the  world.  (3.)  The  Bible,  as  often  before  remarked, 
accounts  for  and  vindicates  the  corruption  of  our  race  on  the  ground 
that  mankind  had  a  full  and  fair  probation  in  Adam,  and  that  the 
spiritual  death  in  which  they  are  born  is  part  of  the  judicial  penalty 
of  his  transgression.  If  we  reject  this  solution  of  the  fact,  we  cannot 
deny  the  fact  itself,  and,  being  a  fact,  it  must  be  consistent  with  the 
character  of  God. 

The  Doctrine  represents  God  as  the  Author  of  Sin. 

3.  A  third  objection  often  and  confidently  urged  is,  that  the 
Church  doctrine  on  this  subject  makes  God  the  author  of  sin. 
God  is  the  author  of  our  nature.  If  our  nature  be  sinful,  God 
must  be  the  author  of  sin.  The  obvious  fallacy  of  this  syllogism 
is,  that  the  word  nature  is  used  in  one  sense  in  the  major  proposi- 
tion, and  in  a  different  sense  in  the  minor.  In  the  one  it  means 
substance  or  essence  ;  in  the  other,  natural  disposition.  It  is  true 
that  God  is  the  author  of  our  essence.  But  our  essence  is  not  sin- 
ful. God  is  indeed  our  Creator.  He  made  us,  and  not  we  our- 
selves. We  are  the  work  of  his  hands.  He  is  the  Father  of  the 
spirits  of  all  men.  But  He  is  not  the  author  of  the  evil  disposi- 
tions with  which  that  nature  is  infected  at  birth.  The  doctrine  of 
original  sin  attributes  no  efficiency  to  God  in  the  production  of  evil. 
It  simply  supposes  that  He  judicially  abandons  our  apostate  race, 
and  withholds  from  the  descendants  of  Adam  the  manifestations  of 
his  favour  and  love,  which  are  the  life  of  the  soul.  That  the  in- 
evitable consequence  of  this  judicial  abandonment  is  spiritual  death, 
no  more  makes  God  the  author  of  sin,  than  the  immorality  and  des- 
perate and  unchanging  wickedness  of  the  reprobate,  from  whom 
God  withholds  his  Spirit,  are  to  be  referred  to  the  infinitely  Holy 
One  as  tlieir  author.  It  is  moreover  a  historical  fact  universally 
admitted,  that  character,  within  certain  limits,  is  transmissible  from 
parents  to  children.  Every  nation,  separate  tribe,  and  even  every 
extended  family  of  men,  has  its  physical,  mental,  social,  and  moral 
peculiarities  which  are  propagated  from  generation  to  generation. 
No  process  of  discipline  or  culture  can  transmute  a  Tatar  into  an 
Englishman,  or  an  Irishman  into  a  Frenchman.  The  Bourbons, 
the  Hapsburgs,  and  other  historical  fiimilies,  have  retained  and 
transmitted  their  peculiarities  for  ages.  We  may  be  unable  to  ex- 
plain this,  but  we  cannot  deny  it.  No  one  is  born  an  absolute  man, 
with  nothing  but  generic  humanity  belonging  to  him.  Every  one 
is  born  a  man  in  a  definite  state,  with  all  those  characteristics  phys- 


254  PART  n.   Ch.  VIII.  — sin. 

ical,  mental,  and  moral,  which  make  iip  his  individuality.  There 
is  nothing  therefore  in  the  doctrine  of  hereditary  depravity  out  of 
analogy  with  providential  facts. 

It  is  said  to  destroy  the  Free  Agency  of  Men. 

4.  It  is  further  objected  to  this  doctrine  that  it  destroys  the  free 
agency  of  man.  If  we  are  born  with  a  corrupt  nature  by  which 
we  are  inevitably  determined  to  sinful  acts,  we  cease  to  be  free  in 
performing  those  acts,  and  consequently  are  not  responsible  for 
them.  This  objection  is  founded  on  a  particular  theory  of  liberty, 
and  must  stand  or  fall  with  it.  The  same  objection  is  urged 
against  the  doctrines  of  decrees,  of  efficacious  grace,  of  the  perse- 
verance of  the  saints,  and  all  other  doctrines  which  assume  that  a 
free  act  can  be  absolutely  certain  as  to  its  occurrence.  It  is  enough 
here  to  remark  that  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  supposes  men  to 
have  the  same  kind  and  degree  of  liberty  in  sinning  under  the  in- 
fluence of  a  corrupt  nature,  that  saints  and  angels  have  in  acting 
rightly  under  the  influence  of  a  holy  nature.  To  act  according  to 
its  nature  is  the  only  liberty  which  belongs  to  any  created  being. 

§  14.   The  Seat  of  Original  Sin. 

Having  considered  the  nature  of  original  sin,  the  next  question 
concerns  its  seat.  According  to  one  theory  it  is  in  the  body.  The 
only  evil  effect  of  Adam's  sin  upon  his  posterity,  which  some  theo- 
logians admit,  is  the  disorder  of  his  physical  nature,  whereby  undue 
influence  is  secured  to  bodily  appetites  and  passions.  Scarcely  dis- 
tinguishable from  this  theory  is  the  doctrine  that  the  sensuous 
nature  of  man,  as  distinguished  from  the  reason  and  conscience,  is 
alone  affected  by  our  hereditary  depravity.  A  third  doctrine  is, 
that  the  heart,  considered  as  the  seat  of  the  affections  as  distin- 
guished from  the  understanding,  is  the  seat  of  natural  depravity. 
This  doctrine  is  connected  with  the  idea  that  all  sin  and  holiness 
are  forms  of  feeling  or  states  of  the  affections.  And  it  is  made  the 
ground  on  which  the  nature  of  regeneration  and  conversion,  the 
relation  between  repentance  and  faitli,  and  other  points  of  practical 
theology  are  explained.  Everything  is  made  to  depend  on  the  in- 
clinations or  state  of  the  feeling-s.  Instead  of  the  affections  follow- 
ing  the  understanding,  the  understanding,  it  is  said,  follows  the 
affections.  A  man  understands  and  receives  the  truth  only  when 
he  loves  it.  Regeneration  is  simply  a  change  in  the  state  of  the 
affections,  and  the  only  inability  under  which  sinners  labour  as  to 
the  things  of  God,  is  disinclination.     In  opposition  to  all  these  doc- 


§14.]  THE  SEAT  OF   ORIGINAL   SIN.  255 

trines  Augustinianism,  as  held  by  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
Churches,  teaciies  that  the  whole  man,  soul  and  body,  the  higher 
as  well  as  the  lower,  the  intellectual  as  well  as  the  emotional  facul- 
ties of  the  soul,  is  affected  by  the  corruption  of  our  nature  derived 
from  our  first  parents. 

As  the  Scriptures  speak  of  the  body  being  sanctified  in  two 
senses,  first,  as  being  consecrated  to  the  service  of  God ;  and  sec- 
ondly, as  being  in  a  normal  condition  in  all  its  relati'ons  to  our  spir- 
itual nature,  so  as  to  be  a  fit  instrument  unto  righteousness;  and 
also  as  a  partaker  of  the  benefits  of  redemption  ;  so  also  they  rep- 
resent the  body  as  affected  by  the  apostasy  of  our  race.  It  is  not 
only  employed  in  the  service  of  sin  or  as  an  instrument  to  unright- 
eousness ;  but  it  is  in  every  respect  deteriorated.  It  is  inordinate 
in  its  cravings,  rebellious,  and  hard  to  restrain.  It  is  as  the  Apos- 
tle says,  the  opposite  of  the  glorious,  spiritual  body  with  which  the 
believer  is  hereafter  to  be  invested. 

The  Whole  Soul  the  Seat  of  Original  Sin. 

The  theory  that  the  affections  (or,  the  heart  in  the  limited  sense 
of  that  word),  to  the  exclusion  of  the  rational  faculties,  are  alone 
affected  by  original  sin,  is  unscriptural,  and  the  opposite  doctrine 
which  makes  the  whole  soul  the  subject  of  inherent  corruption,  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  as  appears,  — 

1.  Because  the  Scriptures  do  not  make  the  broad  distinction  be- 
tween the  understanding  and  the  heart,  which  is  commonly  made 
in  our  philosophy.  They  speak  of  "  the  thoughts  of  the  heart," 
of  "  the  intents  of  the  heart,"  and  of  "  the  eyes  of  the  heart,"  as 
well  as  of  its  emotions  and  affections.  The  whole  immaterial  prin- 
ciple is  in  the  Bible  designated  as  the  soul,  the  spirit,  the  mind,  the 
heart.  And  therefore  when  it  speaks  of  the  heart,  it  means  the 
man,  the  self,  that  in  which  personal  individuality  resides.  If  the 
heart  be  corrupt  the  whole  soul  in  all  its  powers  is  corrupt. 

2.  The  opposite  doctrine  assumes  that  there  is  nothing  moral 
in  our  cognitions  or  judgments  ;  that  all  knowledge  is  purely  specu- 
lative. Whereas,  according  to  the  Scriptui-e  the  chief  sins  of  men 
consist  in  their  wrong  judgments,  in  thinking  and  believing  evil  to 
be  good,  and  good  to  be  evil.  This  in  its  highest  form,  as  our  Lord 
teaches  us,  is  the  unpardonable  sin,  or  blasphemy  against  the  Holy 
Ghost.  It  was  because  the  Pharisees  thought  that  Christ  was  evil, 
that  his  works  were  the  works  of  Satan,  tliat  He  declared  tliat  they 
could  never  be  forgiven.  It  was  because  Paul  could  see  no  beauty 
in  Christ  that  he  should  desire  Him,  and  because  he  verily  thought 


256  PART  n.   Ch.  viu.  — sm. 

he  was  doing  God  service  in  persecuting  believers,  that  he  was, 
and  declared  himself  to  be,  the  chief  of  sinners.  It  is,  as  the  Bible 
clearly  reveals,  because  men  are  ignorant  of  God,  and  blind  to 
the  manifestation  of  his  glorj  in  the  person  of  his  Son,  that  they 
are  lost.  On  the  other  hand  the  highest  form  of  moral  excellence 
consists  in  knowledge.  To  know  God  is  eternal  life.  To  know 
Christ  is  to  be  like  Christ.  The  world.  He  says,  hath  not  known 
me,  but  these  (believers)  have  known  me.  True  religion  con- 
sists in  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord,  and  its  universal  prevalence 
among  men  is  predicted  by  saying,  "  All  shall  know  Him  from  the 
least  unto  the  greatest."  Throughout  the  Scriptures  wisdom  is 
piety,  the  wise  are  the  good  ;  folly  is  sin,  and  the  foolish  are  the 
wicked.  Nothing  can  be  more  repugnant  to  the  philosophy  of  the 
Bible  than  the  dissociation  of  moral  character  from  knowledge  ; 
and  nothing  can  be  more  at  variance  with  our  own  consciousness. 
We  know  that  every  affection  in  a  rational  creature  includes  an 
exercise  of  the  cognitive  faculties  ;  and  every  exercise  of  our  cog- 
nitive faculties,  in  relation  to  moral  and  religious  subjects,  includes 
the  exercise  of  our  moral  nature. 

3.  A  third  argument  on  this  subject  is  drawn  from  the  fact  that 
the  Bible  represents  the  natural  or  unrenewed  man  as  blind  or 
ignorant  as  to  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  It  declares  that  he  cannot 
know  them.  And  the  fallen  condition  of  human  nature  is  repre- 
sented as  consisting  primarily  in  this  mental  blindness.  Men  are 
corrupt,  says  the  Apostle,  through  the  ignorance  that  is  in  them. 

4.  Conversion  is  said  to  consist  in  a  translation  from  darkness  to 
light.  God  is  said  to  open  the  eyes.  The  eyes  of  the  understand- 
ing (or  heart)  are  said  to  be  enlightened.  All  believers  are  de- 
clared to  be  the  subjects  of  a  spiritual  illumination.  Paul  describes 
his  own  conversion  by  saying  that,  "  God  revealed  his  Son  in  him." 
He  opened  his  eyes  to  enable  him  to  see  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of 
God,  or  God  manifest  in  the  flesh.  He  thereby  became  a  new 
creature,  and  his  whole  life  was  thenceforth  devoted  to  the  service 
of  Him,  whom  before  he  hated  and  persecuted. 

0.  Knowledcre  is  said  to  be  the  effect  of  regeneration.  Men  are 
renewed  so  as  to  know.  They  are  brought  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  truth  ;  and  they  are  sanctified  by  the  truth.  From  all  these 
ccnsiderations  it  is  evident  that  the  whole  man  is  the  subject  of 
original  sin  ;  that  our  cognitive,  as  well  as  our  emotional  nature  is 
involved  in  the  depravity  consequent  on  our  apostasy  from  God ; 
that  in  knowing  as  well  as  in  loving  or  in  willing,  we  are  under  the 
influence  and  dominion  of  sin. 


§  15.]  INABILITY.  257 

§  15.  Inability. 
The  third  great  point  included  in  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  origi- 
nal sin,  is  the  inability  of  fallen  man  in  his  natural  state,  of  himself 
to  do  anything  spiritually  good.  This  is  necessarily  included  in 
the  idea  of  spiritual  death.  On  this  subject  it  is  proposed :  (1.)  To 
state  the  doctrine  as  presented  in  the  symbols  of  the  Protestant 
churches.  (2.)  To  explain  the  nature  of  the  inability  under  which 
the  sinner  is  said  to  labour.  (3.)  To  exhibit  the  Scriptural  proofs 
of  the  doctrine  ;  and  (4.)  To  answer  the  objections  usually  urged 
against  it. 

The  Doctrine  as  stated  in  Protestant  Symbols. 

There  have  been  three  general  views  as  to  the  ability  of  fallen 
man,  which  have  prevailed  in  the  Church.  The  first,  the  Pelagian 
doctrine,  which  asserts  the  plenary  ability  of  sinners  to  do  all  that 
God  requires  of  them.  The  second  is  the  Semi-Pelagian  doctrine 
(taking  the  word  Semi-Pelagian  in  its  wide  and  popular  sense), 
which  admits  the  powers  of  man  to  have  been  weakened  by  the 
fall  of  the  race,  but  denies  that  he  lost  all  ability  to  perform  what 
is  spiritually  good.  And  thirdly,  the  Augustinian  or  Protestant 
doctrine  which  teaches  that  such  is  the  nature  of  inherent,  heredi- 
tary depravity  that  men  since  the  fall  are  utterly  unable  to  turn 
themselves  unto  God,  or  to  do  anything  truly  good  in  his  sight. 
With  these  three  views  of  the  ability  of  fallen  men  are  connected 
corresponding  views  of  grace,  or  the  influence  and'operations  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  man's  regeneration  and  conversion.  Pelagians  deny 
the  necessity  of  any  supernatural  influence  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
regeneration  and  sanctification  of  men.  Semi-Pelagians  admit  the 
necessity  of  such  divine  influence  to  assist  the  enfeebled  powers  of 
man  in  the  work  of  turning  unto  God,  but  claim  that  the  sinner 
cooperates  in  that  work  and  that  upon  his  voluntary  cooperation  the 
issue  depends.  Augustinians  and  Protestants  ascribe  the  whole 
work  of  regeneration  to  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  soul  being  passive 
therein,  the  subject,  and  not  the  agent  of  the  change ;  although 
active  and  cooperating  in  all  the  exercises  of  the  divine  life  of 
which  it  has  been  made  the  recipient. 

The  doctrine  of  the  sinner's  inability  is  thus  stated  in  the  sym- 
bols of  the  Lutheran  Church.  The  "Augsburg  Confession  "^ 
says :  "  Humana  voluntas  habet  aliquam  libertatem  ad  efficiendara 
civilem  justitiam  et  deligendas  res  rationi  subjectas.    Sed  non  habet 

1  I.  xviii.;  Hase,  LibH  Symbolici,  pp.  14,  15. 

VOL.   II.  17 


258  PART  11.   ch.  vin.  — sin. 

vim  sine  Spiritu  Sancto  efficiendae  justitise  Dei,  seu  justitise  spin'tu- 
alis,  quia  animalis  homo  non  pereepit  ea  quae  sunt  Spiritus  Dei  (1 
Cor.  ii.  14) ;  sed  liaec  fit  in  cordibus,  cum  per  verbum  Spiritus  Sanc- 
tus  concipitur.  Ha3c  totidem  verbis  dicit  Augustinus  ;  ^  est,  fate- 
mur,  liberum  arbitrium  omnibus  hominibus ;  habens  quidem  judic- 
ium rationis,  non  per  quod  sit  idoneum,  quae  ad  Deum  pertinent,  sine 
Deo  aut  inchoare  ant  certe  peragere  :  sed  tantum  in  operibus  vitae 
presentis,  tarn  bonis,  quam  etiam  malis." 

"Formula  Concordite:"^  "  Etsi  humana  ratio  seu  naturalis  intel- 
lectus  hominis,  obscuram  aliquam  notitias  illius  scintillulam  reliquam 
habet,  quod  sit  Deus,  et  particulam  aliquam  legis  tenet :  tamen  adeo 
ignorans,  coeca,  et  perversa  est  ratio  ilia,  ut  ingeniosissimi  homines 
in  hoc  mundo  evangelium  de  Filio  Dei  et  promissiones  divinas  de 
aeterna  salute  legant  vel  audiant,  tamen  ea  propriis  viribus  percipere, 
intelligere,  credere  et  vera  esse,  statuere  nequeant.  Quin  potius 
quanto  diligentius  in  ea  re  elaborant,  ut  spirituales  res  istas  suae 
rationis  acumine  indagent  et  comprehendant,  tanto  minus  intelli- 
gunt  et  credunt,  et  ea  omnia  pro  stultitia  et  meris  nugis  et  fabulis 
habent,  priusquam  a  Spiritu  Sancto  illuminentur  et  doceantur." 
Again,^  '•  Natura  corrupta  viribus  suis  coram  Deo  nihil  aliud,  nisi 
peccare  possit." 

"  SacrsB  literae  hominis  non  renati  cor  duro  lapidi,  qui  ad  tactum 
non  cedat,  sed  resistat,  idem  rudi  trunco,  interdum  etiam  ferae  in 
domitae  comparant,  non  quod  homo  post  lapsum  non  amplius  sit 
rationalis  creatura,  aut  quod  absque  auditu  et  meditatione  verbi 
divini  ad  Deum  convertatur,  aut  quod  in  rebus  externis  et  civilibus 
nihil  boni  aut  mali  intelligere  possit,  aut  libera  aliquid  agere  vel 
omittere  queat."* 

"  Antequam  homo  per  Spiritum  Sanctum  illnminatur,  converti- 
tur,  regeneratur  et  trahitur,  ex  sese,  et  propriis  naturalibus  suis 
viribus  in  rebus  spiritualibus,  et  ad  conversionem  aut  regeneration- 
em  suam  nihil  inchoare,  operari,  aut  cooperari  potest,  nee  plus, 
quam  lapis,  truncus,  aut  limus."  ^ 

The  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  churches  is  to  the  same  effect.^ 
"  Confessio  Helvetica  II. :  "  "  Non  sublatus  est  quidem  homini  in- 
tellectus,  non  erepta  ei  voluntas,  et  prorsus  in  lapidem  vel  truncum 
est  commutatus :  caterum  ilia  ita  sunt  Immutata  et  inminuta  in 
homine,  ut  non  possint  amplius,  quod  potuerunt  ante  lapsum.     In- 

1  Hypomnesticon,  seu  Hypognoaticon,  lib.  iii.  iv.  5 ;  Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  vol.  x.  p. 
2209,  a. 

2  n.  9;  Hase,  p.  657.  «  i.  25;  Ibid.  p.  643. 
<  n.  19;  Ibid.  p.  661.  6  ii.  24;  Ibid.  p.  662. 
•  IX.;  Niemeyer,  Collectio  QmfeMionum,  p.  479. 


§  15.]  INABILITY.  259 

tellectus  enim  obsouratus  est:  voluntas  vero  ex  libera,  facta  est 
voluntas  serva.  Nam  servit  peccato,  non  nolens,  sed  volens. 
Etenim  voluntas,  non  noluntas  dicitur 

"  Quantum  vero  ad  bonuni  et  ad  virtutes,  Intellectus  hominis, 

non    recte  judlcat  de   divinis    ex   semetipso Constat  vero 

mentem  vel  intellectum  ducem  esse  voluntatis,  cum  autem  coecus 
sit  dux,  claret  quousque  et  voluntas  pertingat.  Proinde  nullum  est 
ad  bonum  homini  arbitrium  liberum,  nondum  renato ;  vires  nullae 

ad  perficiendum  bonum ^Cseterum  nemo  negat  in  externis, 

et  regenitos  et   non    regenitos    habere  liberum   arbitrium 

Damnamus  in  hac  causa  Manichseos,  qui  negant  homini  bono,  ex 
libero  arbitrio  fuisse  initium  mali.  Damnamus  etiam  Pelagianos, 
qui  dicunt  hominem  malum  sufficienter  habere  liberum  arbitrium, 
ad  faciendum  prseceptum  bonum." 

"Confessio  Gallicana:"  "  Etsi  enim  nonnullam  habet  boni  et 
mali  discretionem  :  affirmamus  tamen  quicquid  habet  lucis  mox  fieri 
tenebras,  cum  de  quaerendo  Deo  agitur,  adeo  ut  sua  intelligentia  et 
ratione  nullo  modo  possit  ad  eum  accedere  :  item  quamvis  voluntate 
sit  prseditus,  qua  ad  hoc  vel  illud  movetur,  tamen  quum  ea  sit  pen- 
itus  sub  peccato  captiva,  nullam  prorsus  habet  ad  bonum  appeten- 
dum  libertatem,  nisi  quam  ex  gratia  et  Dei  dono  acceperit."  ^ 

"  Articuli  XXXIX :  "  "  Ea  est  hominis  post  lapsum  Adas  con- 
ditio, ut  sese  naturalibus  suis  viribus  et  bonis  operibus  ad  fidem 
et  invocationem  Dei  convertere  ac  praeparare  non  possit.  Quare 
absque  gratia  Dei  quae  per  Christum  est  nos  praeveniente,  ut  veli- 
mus  et  cooperante  dum  volumus,  ad  pietatis  opera  facienda,  quas 
Deo  grata  sunt  ac  accepta,  nihil  valemus."^ 

"  Opera  quae  fiunt  ante  gratiam  Christi,  et  Spiritus  ejus  afflatum, 

cum  ex  fide  Christi  non  prodeant  minime  Deo  grata  sunt 

Immo,  cum  non  sint  facta  ut  Deus  ilia  fieri  voluit  et  praecepit, 
peccati  rationem  habere  non  dubitamus."  * 

"  Canones  Dordrechtanae,"  *  *'  Omnes  homines  in  peccato  con- 
cipiuntur,  et  filii  iras  nascuntur,  inepti  ad  omne  bonum  salutare, 
propensi  ad  malum,  in  peccatis  mortui,  et  peccati  servi ;  et  absque 
Spiritus  Sancti  regenerantis  gratia,  ad  Deum  redire,  naturam 
depravatam  corrigere,  vel  ad  ejus  correctionem  se  disponere  nee 
volunt,  nee  possunt." 

"  Residuum  quidem  est  post  lapsum  in  homine  lumen  aliquod 
naturae,  cujus  beneficio  ille  notitias  quasdam  de  Deo,  de  rebus  nat- 

1  Niemeyer,  p.  481.  2  jx ;  Ibid.  p.  33T 

3  X.;  Ibid.  p.  603.  *  xiii.;  Ibid.  p.  604. 

6  III.  iii. ;  loid.  p.  709. 


260  PART  n.   Ch.  vm.  — sm. 

urallbus,  de  discrimine  honestorum  et  turpium  retinet,  et  aliquod 
virtutis  ac  disciplinae  externse  studium  ostendit :  sed  tantum  abest, 
ut  hoc  naturae  lumine  ad  salutarem  Dei  cognitionem  pervenire,  et 
ad  eum  se  convertere  possit,  ut  ne  quidem  eo  in  naturalibus  ac 
civilibus  recte  utatur,  quinimo  qualecumque  id  demum  sit,  id  totum 
variis  modis  contaminet  atque  in  injustitiadetineat,  quod  dum  facit, 
coram  Deo  inexcusabilis  redditur."  ^ 

"Westminster  Confession."^  Original  sin  is  declared  in  sections 
second  and  third  to  include  the  loss  of  original  righteousness,  and 
a  corrupted  nature  ;  "  whereby,"  in  section  fourth,  it  is  declared, 
"  we  are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all 
good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil." 

"  Their  (believers')  ability  to  do  good  works  is  not  at  all  of 
themselves,  but  wholly  from  the  Spirit  of  Christ."  ^ 

Effectual  calling  "  is  of  God's  free  and  special  grace  alone,  not 
from  anything  at  all  foreseen  in  man,  who  is  altogether  passive 
therein,  until,  being  quickened  and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
he  is  thereby  enabled  to  answer  this  call,  and  to  embrace  the  gi'ace 
offered  and  conveyed  in  it."* 

The  Nature  of  the  Sinner's  Inability. 

It  appears  from  the  authoritative  statements  of  this  doctrine,  as 
given  in  the  standards  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  churches, 
that  the  inability  under  which  man,  since  the  fall,  is  said  to  labour, 
does  not  arise  :  — 

Inability  does  not  arise  from  the  Loss  of  any  Faculty  of  the  Soul. 

1.  From  the  loss  of  any  faculty  of  his  mind  or  of  any  original, 
essential  attribute  of  his  nature.  He  retains  his  reason,  will,  and 
conscience.  He  has  the  intellectual  power  of  cognition,  the  power 
of  self-determination,  and  the  faculty  of  discerning  between  moral 
good  and  evil.  His  conscience,  as  the  Apostle  says,  approves  or 
disapproves  of  his  moral  acts. 

Nor  from  the  Loss  of  Free-agency. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  man's  inability,  therefore,  does  not  assume 
that  man  has  ceased  to  be  a  free  moral  agent.  He  is  free  because 
he  determines  his  own  acts.  Every  volition  is  an  act  of  free  self- 
determination.  He  is  a  moral  agent  because  he  has  the  conscious- 
ness  of  moral  obligation,  and  whenever  he  sins  he  acts  freely  against 

1  m.  iv. ;  Niemeyer.  *  Chapter  vi. 

3  Ibid.  ch.  XV.  i.  §  3.  *  Ibid.  ch.  x.  §  2. 


§  15.]  INABILITY.  261 

the  convictions  of  conscience  or  the  precepts  of  the  moral  law.  That 
a  man  is  in  such  a  state  that  he  uniformly  prefers  and  chooses  evil 
instead  of  good,  as  do  the  fallen  angels,  is  no  more  inconsistent  with 
his  free  moral  agency  than  his  being  in  such  a  state  as  that  he  pre- 
fers and  chooses  good  with  the  same  uniformity  that  the  holy 
angels  do. 

Inability  not  mere  Disinclination. 

3.  The  inability  of  sinners,  according  to  the  above  statement  of 
the  doctrine,  is  not  mere  disinclination  or  aversion  to  what  is  good. 
This  disinclination  exists,  but  it  is  not  the  ultimate  fact.  There 
must  be  some  cause  or  reason  for  it.  As  God  and  Christ  are 
infinitely  lovely,  the  fact  that  sinners  do  not  love  them  is  not 
accounted  for  by  saying  that  they  are  not  inclined  to  deliglit  in 
infinite  excellence.  That  is  only  stating  the  same  thing  in  different 
words.  If  a  man  does  not  perceive  the  beauty  of  a  work  of  art,  or 
of  a  Hterarj-  production,  it  is  no  solution  of  the  fact  to  say  that  he 
has  no  inclination  for  such  forms  of  beauty.  Why  is  it  that  what 
is  beautiful  m  itself,  and  in  the  judgment  of  all  competent  judges, 
is  without  form  or  comeliness  in  his  eyes  ?  Why  is  it  that  the 
supreme  excellence  of  God,  and  all  that  makes  Christ  the  chief 
among  ten  thousand  and  the  one  altogether  lovely  in  the  sight  of 
saints  and  angels,  awaken  no  corresponding  feelings  in  the  unre- 
newed heart?  The  inability  of  the  sinner,  therefore,  neither  con- 
sists in  his  disinclination  to  good  nor  does  it  arise  exclusively  from 
that  source. 

It  Arises  from  the  Want  of  Spiritual  Discernment. 

4.  According  to  the  Scriptures  and  to  the  standards  of  doctrine 
above  quoted,  it  consists  in  the  want  of  power  riglitly  to  discern 
spiritual  things,  and  the  consequent  want  of  all  right  affections  to- 
ward them.  And  this  want  of  power  of  spiritual  discernment  arises 
from  the  corruption  of  our  whole  nature,  by  which  the  reason  or 
understanding  is  blinded,  and  the  taste  and  feelings  are  perverted. 
And  as  this  state  of  mind  is  innate,  as  it  is  a  state  or  condition  of 
our  nature,  it  lies  below  the  will,  and  is  beyond  its  power,  controlling 
both  our  affections  and  our  volitions.  It  is  indeed  a  familiar  fact 
of  experience  that  a  man's  judgments  as  to  what  is  true  or  false, 
right  or  wrong,  are  in  many  cases  determined  by  his  interests  or 
feelings.  Some  have,  in  their  philosophy,  generalized  this  fact  into 
a  law,  and  teach  that  as  to  all  aesthetic  and  moral  subjects  the 
judgments  and  apprehensions  of  the  understanding  are  determined 
by  the  state  of  the  feelings.     In  applying  this  law  to  the  matters 


262  PART  11.     Ch.   VIIL  — sin. 

of  religion  they  insist  that  the  affections  only  are  the  subject  of 
moral  corruption,  and  that  if  these  be  purified  or  renewed,  the 
understanding  then  apprehends  and  judges  rightly  as  a  matter  of 
course.  It  would  be  easy  to  show  that  this,  as  a  philosophical 
theory,  is  altogether  unsatisfactory.  The  affections  suppose  an 
object.  They  can  be  excited  only  in  view  of  an  object.  If  we  love 
we  must  love  something.  Love  is  complacency  and  delight  in  the 
thing  loved,  and  of  necessity  supposes  the  apprehension  of  it  as 
good  and  desirable.  It  is  clearly  impossible  that  we  should  love 
God  unless  we  apprehend  his  nature  and  perfections;  and  therefore 
to  call  love  into  exercise  it  is  necessary  that  the  mind  should  appre- 
hend God  as  He  really  is.  Otherwise  the  affection  would  be  neither 
rational  nor  holy.  This,  however,  is  of  subordinate  moment.  The 
philosophy  of  one  man  has  no  authority  for  other  men.  It  is  only 
the  philosophy  of  the  Bible,  that  which  is  assumed  or  presupposed 
in  the  doctrinal  statements  of  the  Word  of  God,  to  which  we  are 
called  upon  unhesitatingly  to  submit.  Everywhere  in  the  Scriptures 
it  is  asserted  or  assumed  that  the  feelings  follow  the  understanding  ; 
that  the  illumination  of  the  mind  in  the  due  appi'ehension  of  spiritual 
objects  is  the  necessary  preliminary  condition  of  all  right  feeling 
and  conduct.  We  must  know  God  in  order  to  love  Him.  This  is 
distinctly  asserted  by  the  Apostle  in  1  Cor.  ii.  14.  He  there  says, 
(1.)  That  the  natural  or  unrenewed  man  does  not  i-eceive  the 
things  of  the  Spirit.  (2.)  The  reason  why  he  does  not  receive 
them  is  declared  to  be  that  they  are  foolishness  unto  him,  or  that 
he  cannot  know  them,  (o.)  And  the  reason  why  he  cannot  know 
them  is  that  they  are  spiritually  discerned.  It  is  ignorance,  the 
want  of  discernment  of  the  beauty,  excellence,  and  suitableness  of 
the  things  of  the  Spirit  (i.  e.,  of  the  truths  which  the  Spirit  has 
revealed),  that  is  the  reason  or  cause  of  unbelief.  So  also  in  Eph. 
iv.  18,  he  says,  The  heathen  (unconverted  men)  are  "  alienated 
from  the  life  of  God,  through  the  ignorance  that  is  in  them."  Hence 
his  frequent  prayers  for  the  illumination  of  his  readers  ;  and  the 
suj)plication  of  the  Psalmist  that  his  eyes  might  be  opened.  Hence, 
also,  true  conversion  is  said  to  be  effected  by  a  revelation.  Paul 
was  instantaneously  changed  from  a  persecutor  to  a  worshipper  of 
Christ,  when  it  j^leased  God  to  reveal  his  Son  in  him.  Those  who 
perish  are  lost  because  the  god  of  this  world  has  blinded  their  eyes 
so  that  they  fail  to  see  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ. 
It  is  in  accordance  with  this  principle  that  knowledge  is  essential  to 
holiness,  that  true  religion  and  life  everlasting  are  said  to  consist  in 
the  knowledge  of  God  (John  xvii.  3)  ;  and  that  men  are  said  to  be 


§  15.]  INABILITY.  263 

saved  and  sanctified  by  the  truth.  It  is  therefore  the  clear  doctrine 
of  the  Bible  that  the  inability  of  men  does  not  consist  in  mere 
disinclination  or  opposition  of  feeling  to  the  things  of  God,  but  that 
this  disinclination  or  alienation,  as  the  Apostle  calls  it,  arises  from 
the  blindness  of  their  minds.  We  are  not,  however,  to  go  to  the 
opposite  extreme,  and  adopt  what  has  been  called  the  "  light 
system,"  which  teaches  that  men  are  regenerated  by  light  or 
knowledge,  and  that  all  that  is  needed  is  that  the  eyes  of  the  un- 
derstanding should  be  opened.  As  the  whole  soul  is  the  subject  of 
original  sin  the  whole  soul  is  the  subject  of  regeneration.  A  blind 
man  cannot  possibly  rejoice  in  the  beauties  of  nature  or  art  until 
his  sight  is  restored.  But,  if  uncultivated,  the  mere  restoration  of 
sight  will  not  give  him  the  perception  of  beauty.  His  whole  nature 
must  be  refined  and  elevated.  So  also  the  whole  nature  of  apostate 
man  must  be  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  then  his  eyes  being 
opened  to  the  glory  of  God  in  Christ,  he  will  rejoice  in  Him  Avith 
joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory.  But  the  illumination  of  the  mind 
is  indispensable  to  holy  feelings,  and  is  their  proximate  cause.  This 
being  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  it  follows  that  the  sinner's  disability 
does  not  consist  in  mere  disinclination  to  holiness. 

Inahility  Asserted  only  in  Reference  to  the  "  Things  of  the  Spirit.^'' 

5.  This  inability  is  asserted  only  in  reference  to  "  the  things  of 
the  Spirit."  It  is  admitted  in  all  the  Confessions  above  quoted 
that  man  since  the  fall  has  not  only  the  liberty  of  choice  or  power 
of  self-determination,  but  also  is  able  to  perform  moral  acts,  good  as 
well  as  evil.  He  can  be  kind  and  just,  and  fulfil  his  social  duties 
in  a  manner  to  secure  the  approbation  of  his  fellow-men.  It  is  not 
meant  that  the  state  of  mind  in  which  these  acts  are  performed,  or 
the  motives  by  which  they  are  determined,  are  such  as  to  meet  the 
approbation  of  an  infinitely  holy  God ;  but  simply  that  these  acts, 
as  to  the  matter  of  them,  are  prescribed  by  the  moral  law.  Theo- 
logians, as  we  have  seen,  designate  the  class  of  acts  as  to  which 
fallen  man  retains  his  ability  as  '''•justitia  civilis,^^  or  "  things 
external."  And  the  class  as  to  which  his  inability  is  asserted  is 
designated  as  "  the  things  of  God,"  "  the  things  of  the  Spirit," 
"  things  connected  with  salvation."  The  difference  between  these 
two  classes  of  acts,  although  it  may  not  be  easy  to  state  it  in  words, 
is  universally  recognized.  There  is  an  obvious  difference  between 
morality  and  religion  ;  and  between  those  religious  affections  of 
reverence  and  gratitude  which  all  men  more  or  less  experience,. 
and  true   piety.     The    difference  lies  in   the   state  of  mind,  the 


264  PART  n.   Ch.  vm.  — sin. 

motives,  and  the  apprehension  of  the  objects  of  these  affections.  It 
is  the  difference  between  hoHness  and  mere  natural  feeling.  What 
the  Bible  and  all  the  Confessions  of  the  churches  of  the  Reforma- 
tion assert  is,  that  man,  since  the  fall,  cannot  change  his  own  heart; 
he  cannot  regenerate  his  soul ;  he  cannot  repent  with  godly  sorrow, 
or  exercise  that  faith  which  is  unto  salvation.  He  cannot,  in  short,  I 
put  forth  any  holy  exercise  or  perform  any  act  in  such  a  way  as  to 
merit  the  approbation  of  God.  Sin  cleaves  to  all  he  does,  and  from 
the  dominion  of  sin  he  cannot  free  himself. 

In  one  Sense  this  Inability  is  Natural. 

6.  This  inability  is  natural  in  one  familiar  and  important  sense 
of  the  word.  It  is  not  natural  in  the  same  sense  that  reason,  will, 
and  conscience  are  natural.  These  constitute  our  nature,  and  with- 
out them  or  any  one  of  them,  we  should  cease  to  be  men.  In  the 
second  place,  it  is  not  natural  as  arising  from  the  necessary  limita- 
tions of  our  nature  and  belonging  to  our  original  and  normal  con- 
dition. It  arises  out  of  the  nature  of  man  as  a  creature  that  he 
cannot  create,  and  cannot  produce  any  effect  out  of  himself  by  a 
mere  volition.  Adam  in  the  state  of  perfection  could  not  will  a 
stone  to  move,  or  a  plant  to  grow.  It  is  obvious  that  an  inability 
arising  from  either  of  the  sources  above  mentioned,  i.  e.,  from  the 
want  of  any  of  the  essential  faculties  of  our  nature,  or  from  the 
original  and  normal  limitations  of  our  being,  involves  freedom  from 
obligation.  In  this  sense  nothing  is  more  true  than  that  ability 
limits  obligation.  No  creature  can  justly  be  required  to  do  what 
surpasses  his  powers  as  a  creature. 

On  the  other  hand,  although  the  inability  of  sinners  is  not  natu- 
ral in  either  of  tlie  senses  above  stated,  it  is  natural  in  the  sense 
that  it  arises  out  of  the  present  state  of  his  nature.  It  is  natural 
in  the  same  sense  as  selfishness,  pride,  and  worldly  mindedness 
are  natural.  It  is  not  acquired,  or  super-induced  by  any  ab  extra 
influence,  but  flows  from  the  condition  in  which  human  nature 
exists  since  the  fall  of  Adam. 

In  another  Sense  it  is  Moral. 

7.  This  inability,  although  natural  in  the  sense  just  stated,  is 
nevertheless  moral,  inasmuch  as  it  arises  out  of  the  moral  state  of 
the  soul,  as  it  relates  to  moral  action,  and  as  it  is  removed  by  a 
moral  change,  that  is,  by  regeneration. 


-/ 


§  15.]  INABILITY.  265 

Objections  to  the  Popular  Distinction  between  Natural  and  Moral 

Ability. 

In  this  country  much  stress  has  been  laid  upon  the  distinction 
between  moral  and  natural  ability.  It  has  been  regarded  as  one 
of  the  great  American  improvements  in  theology,  and  as  marking 
an  important  advance  in  the  science.  It  is  asserted  that  man  since) 
the  fall  has  natural  ability  to  do  all  that  is  required  of  him,  and  on 
this  ground  his  responsibility  is  made  to  rest ;  but  it  is  admitted 
that  he  is  morally  unable  to  turn  unto  God,  or  perfectly  keep  his 
commandments.  By  this  distinction,  it  is  thought,  we  may  save 
the  great  principle  that  ability  limits  obligation,  that  a  man  cannot 
be  bound  to  do  what  he  cannot  do,  and  at  the  same  time  hold  fast 
the  Scriptural  doctrine  which  teaches  that  the  sinner  cannot  of 
himself  repent  or  change  his  own  heart.  With  regard  to  this  dis- 
tinction as  it  is  commonly  and  popularly  presented,  it  may  be 
remarked :  — 

1.  That  the  terms  natural  and  moral  are  not  antithetical.  A 
thing  may  be  at  once  natural  and  moral.  The  inability  of  the  sin- 
ner, as  above  remarked,  although  moral,  Is  in  a  most  important 
sense  natural.  And,  therefore,  it  is  erroneous  to  say,  that  it  is 
simply  moral  and  not  natural. 

2.  The  terms  are  objectionable  not  only  because  they  lack  pre- 
cision, but  also  because  they  are  ambiguous.  One  man  means  by 
natural  ability  nothing  more  than  the  possession  of  the  attributes 

^of  reason,  will,  and  conscience.  Another  means  plenary  power, 
all  that  is  requisite  to  produce  a  given  effect.  And  this  is  the 
proper  meaning  of  the  words.  Ability  Is  the  power  to  do.  If  a 
man  has  the  natural  ability  to  love  God,  he  has  full  power  to  love 
Him.  And  if  He  has  the  power  to  love  Him,  he  has  all  that  is 
requisite  to  call  that  love  into  exercise.  As  this  is  the  proper 
meaning  of  the  terms,  it  is  the  meaning  commonly  attached  to 
them.  Those  who  insist  on  the  natural  ability  of  the  sinner,  gen- 
erally assert  that  he  has  full  power,  without  divine  assistance,  to  do 
all  that  is  required  of  him  :  to  love  God  with  all  his  soul  and  mind 
and  strength,  and  his  neighbour  as  himself.  All  that  stands  in  the 
way  of  his  thus  doing  is  not  an  inability,  but  simply  disinclination, 
or  the  want  of  will.  An  ability  which  Is  not  adequate  to  the  end 
contemplated,  is  no  ability.  It  Is  therefore  a  serious  objection  to 
the  use  of  this  distinction,  as  commonly  made,  that  it  involves  a 
great  error.  It  asserts  that  the  sinner  is  able  to  do  what  in  fact  he 
cannot  do. 


266  PART  n.   Ch.  vm.  — sin. 

3.  It  is  a  further  objection  to  this  mode  of  stating  the  doctrine 
that  it  tends  to  embarrass  or  to  deceive.  It  must  embarrass  the 
people  to  be  told  that  they  can  and  cannot  repent  and  believe. 
One  or  the  other  of  the  two  propositions,  in  the  ordinary  and 
proper  sense  of  the  terms,  must  be  false.  And  any  esoteric  or 
metaphysical  sense  in  which  the  theologian  may  attempt  to  i-econ- 
cile  them,  the  people  will  neither  appreciate  nor  respect.  It  is  a 
much  more  serious  objection  that  it  tends  to  deceive  men  to  tell 
them  that  they  can  change  their  own  hearts,  can  repent,  and  can 
believe.  This  is  not  true,  and  every  man's  consciousness  tells  him.-^ 
that  it  is  untrue.  It  is  of  no  avail  for  the  preacher  to  say  that 
all  he  means  by  ability  is  that  men  have  all  the  faculties  of  rational 
beings,  and  that  those  are  the  only  faculties  to  be  exercised  in  turn- 
ing to  God  or  in  doing  his  will.  We  might  as  reasonably  tell  an 
uneducated  man  that  he  can  understand  and  appreciate  the  Iliad, 
because  he  has  all  the  ficulties  which  the  scholar  possesses.  Still 
less  does  it  avail  to  say  that  the  only  difficulty  is  in  the  will.  And 
therefore  when  we  say  that  men  can  love  God,  we  mean  that  they 
can  love  Him  if  they  will.  If  the  word  will,  be  here  taken  in  its 
ordinary  sense  for  the  power  of  self-determination,  the  proposition 
that  a  man  can  love  God  if  he  will,  is  not  true  ;  for  it  is  notorious 
that  the  affections  are  not  under  the  power  of  the  will.  If  the 
word  be  taken  in  a  wide  sense  as  including  the  affections,  the  prop- 
osition is  a  truism.  It  amounts  to  saying,  that  we  can  love  God  if 
we  do  love  Him. 

4.  The  distinction  between  natural  and  moral  ability,  as  com 
monly  made,  is  unscriptural.     It  has  already  been  admitted  that 
there  is  an  obvious  and  very  important  distinction  between  an  ina- 
bility arising  out  of  the  limitations  of  our  being  as  creatures,  and 
an  inability  arising  out  of  the  apostate  state  of  our  nature  since  the 
fall  of  Adam.     But  this  is  not  what  is  commonly  meant  by  those 
who  assert  the  natural  ability  of  men  to  do  all  that  God  requires  of 
them.     They  mean  and  expressly  assert  that  man,  as  his  nature! 
now  is,  is  perfectly  able  to  change  his  own  heart,  to  repent  and\ 
lead  a  holy  life  ;  that  the  only  difficulty  in  the  way  of  his  so  doing 
is  the  want  of  inclination,  controllable  by  his  own  power.     It  is 
this  representation  which  is  unscriptural.     The   Scriptures  never  1 
thus  address  fallen  men  and  assure  them  of  their  ability  to  delive^J 
themselves  from  the  power  of  sin. 

5.  The  whole  tendency  and  effect  of  this  mode  of  statement  are 
injurious  and  dangerous.  If  a  sinner  must  be  convinced  of  his 
guilt  before  he  can  trust  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ  for  his  jus- 


§  15.]  INABILITY.  267 

tification,  he  must  be  convinced  of  his  helplessness  before  he  can 
look  to  God  for  deliverance.  Those  who  are  made  to  believe  that 
they  can  save  themselves,  are,  in  the  divine  administration,  com- 
monly left  to  their  own  resources. 

In  opposition  therefore  to  the  Pelagian  doctrine  of  the  sinner's 
plenary  ability,  to  the  Semi-Pelagian  or  Arminian  doctrine  of  what 
is  called  "  a  gracious  ability,"  that  is,  an  ability  granted  to  all  wiio 
hear  the  gospel  by  the  common  and  sufficient  grace  of  the   Holy 
Spirit,  and  to  the  doctrine  that  the  only  inability  of  the  sinner  is 
his  disinclination  to  good,  Augustinians  have  ever  taught  that  this  t 
inability  is  absolute  and  entire.     It  is  natural  as  well  as  moral.     It 
is  as  complete,  although  different  in  kind,  as   the  inability  of  the  | 
blind  to  see,  of  the  deaf  to  liear,  or  of  the  dead  to  restore  them-  i 
selves  to  lite. 

Proof  of  the  Doctrine. 

1.   The  first  and  most  obvious  argument  in  support  of  the  Au- 
gustinia)!    or  Orthodox   argument  on  this  subject  is  the  negative 
one.     That  is,  the  fact  that  the  Scriptures  nowhere  attribute  to 
fallen  men  ability  to  change  their  own  hearts  or  to  turn  themselves 
unto  God.     As   their  salvation  depends  on  their  regeneration,  if 
that  work  was  within  the  compass  of  their  own  powers,  it  is  incred- 
ible that  the  Bible  should  never  rest  the  obligation  of  effecting  it 
upon  the  sinner's  ability.     If  he  had  the  power  to  regenerate  him- 
self, we  should  expect  to  find  the  Scriptures  affirming  his  possession 
of  this  ability,  and  calling  upon  him  to  exercise  it.     It  may  indeed 
be  said  that  the  very  command  to  repent  and  believe  implies  the 
possession  of  everything  that  is  I'equisite  to  obedience  to  the  com- 
mand.    It  does  imply  that  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed  are  ra-  |     f^ 
tional  creatures,  capable  of  moral  obligation,  and  that  they  ai'e  free 
moral  agents.     It  implies  nothing  more.    The  command  is  nothing  \ 
more  than  the  authoritative  declaration  of  what  is  obligatory  upon__. 
those  to  whom  it  is  addressed.     We  are  I'equired  to  be  perfect  as 
our  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect.     The  obligation  is  imperative  and 
constant.    Yet  no  sane  man  can  assert  his  own  ability  to  make  him- 
self thus  perfect.  Notwithstanding  therefore  the  repeated  commands 
given  in  the  Bible  to  sinners  to  love  God  with  all   the   heart,  to 
repent  and  believe  the  gospel,  and  live  without  sin,  it  remains  true 
that  the  Scriptures  nowhere  assert  or  recognize  the  ability  of  fallen 
man  to  fulfil  these  requisitions  of  duty. 


4 


268  PART  II.     Ch.  VIU.  — sin. 

Express  Declarations  of  the  Scriptures. 
2.  Besides  this  negative  testimony  of  the  Scriptures,  we  have 
the  repeated  and  explicit  declarations  of  the  Word  of  God  on  this 
subject.  Our  Lord  compares  the  relation  between  himself  and  his 
people  to  that  which  ex'ists  between  the  vine  and  its  branches. 
The  point  of  analogy  is  the  absolute  dependence  common  to  both 
relations.     "  As   the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself,  except  it 

abide  in  the  vine  ;  no  more  can  ye,  except  ye  abide  in  me 

Without  me  ye  can  do  nothing."  (John  xv.  4,  5.)  We  are  here 
taught  that  Christ  is  the  only  source  of  spiritual  life  ;  that  those 
out  of  Him  are  destitute  of  that  life  and  of  all  ability  to  produce 
its  appropriate  fruits  ;  and  even  with  regard  to  those  who  are  in 
Him,  this  ability  is  not  of  themselves,  it  is  derived  entirely  from 
Him.  In  like  manner  the  Apostle  asserts  his  insufficiency  (or  in- 
ability) to  do  anything  of  himself.  Our  "  sufficiency,"  he  says, 
"  is  of  God."  (2  Cor.  iii.  5.)  Christ  tells  the  Jews  (John  vi.  44), 
"  No  man  can  come  to  me,  except  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me 
draw  him."  This  is  not  weakened  or  explained  away  by  his  say- 
ing in  another  place,  "  Ye  will  not  come  to  me  that  ye  might  have 
life."  The  penitent  and  believing  soul  comes  to  Christ  willingly. 
He  wills  to  come.  But  this  does  not  imply  that  he  can  of  himself 
produce  that  willingness.  The  sinner  wills  not  to  come  ;  but  that 
does  not  prove  that  coming  is  in  the  power  of  his  will.  He  cannot 
have  the  will  to  come  to  the  saving  of  his  soul  unless  he  has  a  true 
sense  of  sin,  and  a  proper  apprehension  of  the  person,  the  character 
and  the  work  of  Christ,  and  right  affi?ctions  towards  Plim.  How 
is  he  to  get  these  ?  Are  all  these  complex  states  of  mind,  this 
knowledge,  these  apprehensions,  and  these  affections  subject  to  the 
imperative  power  of  the  will  ?  In  Rom.  viii.  7,  the  Apostle  says, 
"  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God  ;  for  it  is  not  subject  to 
the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be.  So  then  they  that  are  in 
the  flesh  cannot  please  God."  Those  Avho  are  "  in  the  flesh,"  are 
distinguished  from  those  who  are  "  in  the  Spirit."  The  former  are 
the  unrenewed,  men  who  are  in  a  state  of  nature,  and  of  them  it 
is  affirmed  that  they  cannot  please  God.  Faith  is  declared  to  be 
the  gift  of  God,  and  yet  without  faith,  we  are  told  it  is  impos- 
sible that  we  should  please  God.  (Heb.  xi.  6.)  In  1  Cor.  ii. 
14,  it  is  said,  "  The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  :  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him  :  neither  can 
he  know  them,  because  they  are  sj)iritnally  discei-ncd."  The  nat- 
ural man  is  distinguished  from  the  spiritual  man.      The  latter  is 


§  15.]  INABILITY.  269 

one  in  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  principle  of  life  and  activity, 
or,  who  is  under  the  control  of  the  Spirit ;  the  former  is  one  who 
is  under  the  control  of  his  own  fallen  nature,  in  whom  there  is  no 
principle  of  life  and  action  but  what  belongs  to  him  as  a  fallen 
creature.  Of  such  a  man  the  Apostle  asserts,  first,  that  he  does 
not  receive  the  things  of  the  Spirit,  that  is,  the  truths  which  the 
Spirit  has  revealed ;  secondly,  that  they  are  foolishness  to  him  ; 
thirdly,  that  he  cannot  know  them ;  and  fourthly,  that  the  reason 
of  this  inability  is  the  want  of  spiritual  discernment,  that  is,  of 
that  apprehension  of  the  nature  and  truth  of  divine  things  which 
is  due  to  the  inward  teaching  or  illumination  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  passage  therefore  not  only  asserts  the  fact  of  the  sinner's  ina- 
bility, but  teaches  the  ground  or  source  of  it.  It  is  no  mere  aver- 
sion or  disinclination,  but  the  want  of  true  knowledge.  No  man 
can  see  the  beauty  of  a  work  of  art  without  aasthetic  discernment ; 
and  no  man,  according  to  the  Apostle,  can  see  the  truth  and  beauty 
of  spiritual  things  without  spiritual  discernment.  Such  is  the  con- 
stant representation  of  Scripture.  Men  are  everywhere  spoken  of 
and  regarded  not  only  as  guilty  and  polluted,  but  also  as  helpless. 

Involved  in  the  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin. 

3.  The  doctrine  of  the  sinner's  inability  is  involved  in  the  Scrip- 
tural doctrine  of  original  sin.  By  the  apostasy  of  man  from  God 
he  not  only  lost  the  divine  image  and  favour,  but  sunk  into  a  state 
of  spiritual  death.  The  Bible  and  reason  alike  teach  that  God  is 
the  life  of  the  soul ;  his  favour,  and  communion  with  Him,  are 
essential  not  only  to  happiness  but  also  to  holiness.  Those  who  are 
under  his  wrath  and  curse  and  are  banished  from  his  presence,  are 
in  outer  darkness.  They  have  no  true  knowledge,  no  desire  after 
fellowship  with  a  Being  who  to  them  is  a  consuming  fire.  To  the 
Apostle  it  appears  as  the  greatest  absurdity  and  impossibility  that  a 
soul  out  of  favour  with  God  should  be  holy.  This  is  the  funda- 
mental idea  of  his  doctrine  of  sanctification.  Those  who  are  under 
the  law  are  under  the  curse,  and  those  who  are  under  the  curse  are 
-absolutely  ruined.  It  is  essential,  therefore,  to  holiness  that  we 
should  be  delivered  from  the  law  and  restored  to  the  favour  of 
God  before  any  exercise  of  love  or  any  act  of  true  obedience  can 
be  performed  or  experienced  on  our  part.  We  are  free  from  sin 
only  because  we  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace.  The 
whole  of  the  sixth  and  seventh  chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  is  devoted  to  the  development  of  this  principle.  To  the 
Apostle  the  doctrine  that  the  sinner  has  ability  of  himself  to  return 


270  PART  n.   ch.  viu.  — sin. 

to  God,  to  restore  to  his  soul  the  image  of  God,  and  Hve  a  holy 
life,  must  have  appeared  as  thorough  a  rejection  of  his  theory  of 
salvation  as  the  doctrine  that  we  are  justified  hy  works.  His 
whole  system  is  founded  on  the  two  principles  that,  being  guilty, 
we  are  condemned,  and  can  be  justified  only  on  the  ground  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ ;  and,  being  spiritually  dead,  no  objective 
presentation  of  the  truth,  no  authoritative  declarations  of  the  law, 
no  effort  of  our  own  can  originate  spiritual  life,  or  call  forth  any 
spiritual  exercise.  Being  justified  freely  and  restored  to  the  divine 
favour,  we  are  then,  and  only  then,  able  to  bring  forth  fruit  unto 
God.  "  Ye  are  become  dead  to  the  law  b}*  the  body  of  Christ ; 
that  ye  should  be  married  to  another,  even  to  him  who  is  raised 
from  the  dead,  that  we  should  bring  forth  fruit  unto  God.  For 
when  we  were  in  the  flesh,  the  motions  of  sins,  which  were  by  the 
law,  did  work  in  our  members,  to  bring  forth  fruit  unto  death. 
But  now  we  are  delivered  from  the  law,  that  being  dead  wherein 
we  were  held ;  that  we  should  serve  in  newness  of  spirit,  and  not 
in  the  oldness  of  the  letter."  (Rom.  vii.  4—6.)  This  view  of  the 
matter  necessarily  implies  that  the  natural  state  of  fallen  men  is 
one  of  entire  helplessness  and  inability.  They  are  "  utterly  indis- 
posed, disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good."  The  Bible, 
therefore,  as  we  have  already  seen,  uniformly  represents  men  in 
their  natural  state  since  the  fall  as  blind,  deaf,  and  spiritually  dead; 
from  which  state  they  can  no  more  deliver  themselves  than  one 
born  blind  can  open  his  own  eyes,  or  one  corrupting  in  the  grave 
can  restore  himself  to  life. 

The  Neees»ity  of  the  SpirWs  Influence. 

4.  The  next  argument  on  this  subject  is  derived  from  what  the 
Scriptures  teach  of  the  necessity  and  nature  of  the  Spirit's  influence 
in  regeneration  and  sanctification.  If  any  man  will  take  a  Greek 
Concordance  of  the  New  Testament,  and  see  how  often  the  words 
TLviVfia  and  To  YLvivfia  to  ayiov  are  used  by  the  sacred  writers,  he  will 
learn  how  prominent  a  part  the  Holy  Spirit  takes  in  saving  men, 
and  how  hopeless  is  the  case  of  those  who  are  left  to  themselves. 
What  the  Scriptures  clearly  teach  as  to  this  point  is,  (1.)  That  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  source  of  spiritual  life  and  all  its  exercises  ;  that 
without  his  supernatural  influence  we  can  no  more  perform  holy 
acts  than  a  dead  branch,  or  a  branch  separated  from  the  vine  can 
produce  fruit.  (2.)  That  in  the  first  instance  (that  is,  in  regen- 
eration) the  soul  is  the  subject  and  not  the  asrent  of  the  change 
produced.     The  Spirit  gives  life,  and  then  excites  and  guides  all 


§15.]  INABILITY.  271 

its  operations ;  just  as  in  the  natural  world  God  gives  sight  to  the 
blind,  and  then  light  by  which  to  see,  and  objects  to  be  seen,  and 
guides  and  sustains  all  the  exercises  of  the  power  of  vision  which 
He  has  bestowed.  (3.)  That  the  nature  of  the  influence  by  which 
regeneration,  which  must  precede  all  holy  exercises,  is  produced, 
precludes  the  possIblHty  of  preparation  or  cooperation  on  the  part 
of  the  sinner.  Some  effects  are  produced  by  natural  causes,  others 
by  the  simple  vohtion  or  immediate  efficiency  of  God.  To  this 
latter  class  belong  creation,  miracles,  and  regeneration.  (4.)  Hence 
the  effect  produced  is  called  a  new  creature,  a  resurrection,  a  new 
birth.  These  representations  are  designed  to  teach  the  utter  impo- 
tence and  entire  dependence  of  the  sinner.  Salvation  is  not  of  him 
that  wills  nor  of  him  who  runs,  but  of  God  who  shovveth  mercy, 
and  who  works  in  us  to  will  and  to  do  according  to  his  own  good 
pleasure.  These  are  all  points  to  be  more  fully  discussed  hereafter. 
It  Is  enough  in  this  argument  to  say  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible 
concerning  the  absolute  necessity  of  grace,  or  the  supernatural 
influence  of  the  Spirit,  and  of  the  nature  and  effects  of  that  influ- 
ence, are  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  that  the  sinner  is 
able  of  himself  to  perform  any  holy  act. 

The  Argument  from  Experience. 

5.  This  is  a  practical  question.  What  a  man  is  able  to  do  is  best 
determined  not  by  a  priori  reasoning,  or  by  logical  deductions  from 
the  nature  of  his  faculties,  but  by  putting  his  ability  to  the  test. 
The  thing  to  be  done  is  to  turn  from  sin  to  holiness  ;  to  love  God 
perfectly  and  our  neighbour  as  ourselves  ;  to  perform  evei'y  duty 
without  defect  or  omission,  and  keep  ourselves  from  all  sin  of 
thought,  word,  or  deed,  of  heart  or  life.  Can  any  man  do  this  ? 
Does  any  man  need  argument  to  convince  him  that  he  cannot  do 
it?  He  knows  two  things  as  clearly  and  as  surely  as  he  knows  his 
own  existence :  first,  that  he  is  bound  to  be  morally  perfect,  to 
keep  all  God's  commands,  to  have  all  right  feelings  in  constant 
exercise  as  the  occasion  calls  for  them,  and  to  avoid  all  sin  In  feeling 
as  well  as  in  act ;  and,  secondly,  that  he  can  no  more  do  this  than 
he  can  raise  the  dead.  The  metaphysician  may  endeavour  to  prove 
to  the  people  that  there  is  no  external  world,  that  matter  Is  thought; 
and  the  metaphysician  may  believe  it,  but  the  people,  whose  faith 
is  determined  by  the  Instincts  and  divinely  constituted  laws  of  their 
nature,  will  retain  their  own  intuitive  convictions.  In  like  manner 
the  metaphysical  theologian  may  tell  sinners  that  they  can  regen- 
erate themselves,  can  repent  and  believe,  and  love  God  perfectly, 


272  PART  11.   Ch.  vni.  — sin. 

and  the  theologian  may,  by  a  figure  of  speech,  be  said  to  believe  it; 
but  the  poor  sinners  know  that  it  is  not  true.  They  have  tried  a 
thousand  times,  and  would  give  a  thousand  worlds  could  they 
accomplish  the  work,  and  make  themselves  saints  and  heirs  of 
glory  by  a  volition,  or  by  the  exercise  of  their  own  powers,  whether 
transient  or  protracted. 

It  is  universally  admitted,  because  a  universal  fact  of  conscious- 
ness, that  the  feelings  and  affections  are  not  under  the  control  of 
the  will.  No  man  can  love  what  is  hateful  to  him,  or  hate  what  he 
delights  in,  by  any  exercise  of  his  self-determining  power.  Hence 
the  philosophers,  with  Kant,  pronounce  the  command  to  love,  an 
absurdity,  as  sceptics  declare  the  command  to  believe,  absurd.  But 
the  foolishness  of  men  is  the  wisdom  of  God.  It  is  right  that  we 
should  be  required  to  love  God  and  believe  his  Word,  whether  the 
exercise  of  love  and  faith  be  under  the  control  of  our  will  or  not. 
The  only  way  by  which  this  argument  from  the  common  conscious- 
ness of  men  can  be  evaded,  is  by  denying  that  feeling  has  any 
moral  character ;  or  by  assuming  that  the  demands  of  the  law  are 
accommodated  to  the  ability  of  the  agent.  If  he  cannot  love 
holiness,  he  is  not  bound  to  love  it.  If  he  cannot  believe  all  the 
gospel,  he  is  required  to  believe  only  what  he  can  believe,  what  he 
can  see  to  be  true  in  the  light  of  his  own  reason.  Both  these 
assumptions,  however,  are  contrary  to  the  intuitive  convictions  of 
all  men,  and  to  the  express  declarations  of  the  Woi'd  of  God.  All 
men  know  that  moral  character  attaches  to  feelings  as  well  as  to 
purposes  or  volitions  ;  that  benevolence  as  a  feeling  is  right  and 
malice  as  a  feeling  is  wrong.  They  know  with  equal  certainty  that 
the  demands  of  right  are  immutable,  that  the  law  of  God  cannot 
lower  itself  to  the  measure  of  the  power  of  fallen  creatures.  It 
demands  of  them  nothing  that  exceeds  the  limitations  of  their  nature 
as  creatures;  but  it  does  require  the  full  and  constant,  and  therefore 
perfect,  exercise  of  those  powers  in  the  service  of  God  and  in  accord- 
ance with  his  will.  And  this  is  precisely  what  every  fallen  rational 
human  being  is  fully  persuaded  he  cannot  do.  The  conviction  of 
inability,  therefore,  is  as  universal  and  as  indestructible  as  the  belief 
of  existence,  and  all  the  sophisms  of  metaphysical  theologians  are  as 
impotent  as  the  subtleties  of  the  idealist  or  pantheist.  Any  man  or\ 
set  of  men,  any  system  of  philosophy  or  of  theology  which  attempts 
to  stem  the  great  stream  of  human  consciousness  is  certain  to  be 
swept  down  into  the  abyss  of  oblivion  or  destruction.  — ' 


§  15.]  INABILITY.  273 

Conviction  of  tSin, 

There  is  another  aspect  of  this  argument  which  deserves  to  be 
considered.  What  is  conviction  of  sin  ?  What  are  the  experiences 
of  those  vi^hom  the  Spirit  of  God  brings  under  that  conviction  ? 
The  answer  to  these  questions  may  be  drawn  from  the  Bible,  as  for 
example  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  tlie  Romans,  from 
the  records  of  the  inward  life  of  the  people  of  God  in  all  ages,  and 
from  every  believer's  own  religious  experience.  From  all  these 
sources  it  may  be  proved  that  every  soul  truly  convinced  of  sin  is 
brought  to  feel  and  acknowledge,  (1.)  That  he  is  guilty  in  the 
sight  of  God,  and  justly  exposed  to  the  sentence  of  his  violated  law. 
(2.)  That  he  is  utterly  polluted  and  defiled  by  sin ;  that  his  thoughts, 
feelings,  and  acts  are  not  what  conscience  or  the  divine  law  can 
approve;  and  that  it  is  not  separate,  transient  acts  only  by  which  he 
is  thus  polluted,  but  also  that  his  heart  is  not  right,  that  sin  exists  in 
him  as  a  power  or  a  law  working  in  him  all  manner  of  evil.  And, 
(3.)  That  he  can  make  no  atonement  for  his  guilt,  and  that  he 
cannot  free  himself  from  the  power  of  sin  ;  so  that  he  is  forced  to 
cry  out,  O  wretched  man  that  I  am,  who  will  deliver  me  from  the 
body  of  this  death  !  This  sense  of  utter  helplessness,  of  absolute 
inability,  is  as  much  and  as  universally  an  element  of  genuine  con- 
viction as  a  sense  of  guilt  or  the  consciousness  of  defilement.  It  is 
a  great  mercy  that  the  theology  of  the  heart  is  often  better  than 
the  theology  of  the  head. 

6.  The  testimony  of  every  man's  consciousness  is  confirmed  by 
the  common  consciousness  of  the  Church  and  by  the  whole  history 
of  our  race.  Appeal  may  be  made  with  all  confidence  to  the 
prayers,  hymns,  and  other  devotional  writings  of  the  people  of 
God  for  proof  that  no  conviction  is  more  deeply  impressed  on  the 
hearts  of  all  true  Christians  than  that  of  their  utter  helplessness 
and  entire  dependence  upon  the  grace  of  God.  They  deplore  their 
inability  to  love  their  Redeemer,  to  keep  themselves  from  sin,  to 
live  a  holv  life  in  any  degree  adequate  to  their  own  convictions  of 
their  obligations.  Under  this  inability  they  humble  themselves. 
They  never  plead  it  as  an  excuse  or  palliation  ;  they  recognize  it 
as  the  fruit  and  evidence  of  the  corruption  of  their  nature  derived 
as  a  sad  inheritance  from  their  first  parents.  They  refer  with  one 
voice,  whatever  there  is  of  good  in  them,  not  to  their  own  ability, 
but  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Every  one  adopts  as  expressing  the  inmost 
conviction  of  his  heart,  the  language  of  the  Apostle,  "  Not  I,  but 
the  grace  of  God  which  was  with  me."     As  this  is  the  testimony 

VOL.    II.  18 


-74  PART  II.   Ch.  vm.— sin. 

of  the  Church  so  also  it  is  the  testimony  of  all  history.  The  world 
furnishes  no  example  of  a  self-regenerated  man.  No  such  man 
exists  or  ever  has  existed  ;  and  no  man  ever  believed  himself  to 
be  regenerated  by  his  own  power.  If  what  men  can  do  is  to  be 
determined  by  what  men  have  done,  it  may  safely  be  assumed  that 
no  man  can  change  his  own  heart,  or  bring  himself  to  repentance 
toward  God  and  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  An  ability  which 
has  never  in  the  thousands  of  millions  of  our  race  accomplished  the 
desired  end,  even  if  it  existed,  would  not  be  worth  contending  for. 
There  is  scarcely  a  single  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  either  more 
clearly  taught  or  more  abundantK^  confirmed  by  the  common  con- 
sciousness of  men,  whether  saints  or  sinners,  than  the  doctrine  that 
fallen  man  is  destitute  of  all  ability  to  convert  himself  or  to  perform 
any  holy  act  until  renewed  by  the  almighty  power  of  the  Spirit 
of  God. 

Objections. 

1.  The  most  obvious  and  plausible  objection  to  this  doctrine  is 
the  old  one  so  often  considered  already,  namely,  that  it  is  incon- 
sistent with  moral  obligation.  A  man,  it  is  said,  cannot  be  justly 
required  to  do  any  thing  for  which  he  has  not  the  requisite  ability. 
The  fallacy  of  this  objection  lies  in  the  application  of  this  principle. 
It  is  self-evidently  true  in  one  sphere,  but  utterly  untrue  in  another. 
It  is  true  that  the  blind  cannot  justly  be  required  to  see,  or  the 
deaf  to  hear.  A  child  cannot  be  required  to  understand  the  calcu- 
lus, or  an  uneducated  man  to  read  the  classics.  These  things  be- 
long to  the  sphere  of  nature.  The  inability  which  thus  limits  obli- 
gation arises  out  of  the  limitations  which  God  has  imposed  on  our 
nature.  The  principle  in  question  does  not  apply  in  the  sphere  of 
morals  and  religion,  when  the  inability  arises  not  out  of  the  limita- 
tion, but  out  of  the  moral  corruption  of  our  nature.  Even  in  the 
sphere  of  religion  there  is  a  bound  set  to  obligation  by  the  capacity 
of  the  agent.  An  infant  cannot  be  expected  or  required  to  have 
the  measure  of  holy  affections  which  fills  the  souls  of  the  just  made 
perfect.  It  is  only  when  inability  arises  from  sin  and  is  removed 
by  the  removal  of  sin,  that  it  is  consistent  with  continued  obliga- 
tion. And  as  it  has  been  shown  from  Scripture  that  the  inability 
of  the  sinner  to  repent  and  believe,  to  love  God  and  to  lead  a  holy 
life,  does  not  arise  from  the  limitation  of  his  nature  as  a  creature 
(as  is  the  case  with  idiots  or  brutes)  ;  nor  from  the  want  of  the 
requisite  faculties  or  capacity,  but  simply  from  the  corruption  of 
our  nature,  it  follows  that  it  does  not  exonerate  him  from  the  obli- 
gation to  be  and  to  do  all  that  God  requires.    This,  as  shown  above, 


§15.]  INABILITY.  275 

is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  is  confirmed  by  the  universal  con- 
sciousness of  men,  and  especially  by  the  experience  of  all  the  people 
of  God.  They  with  one  voice  deplore  their  helplessness  and  their 
perfect  inability  to  live  without  sin,  and  yet  acknowledge  their  obli- 
gation to  be  perfectly  holy. 

"We  are  responsible  for  external  acts,  because  they  depend  on 
our  volitions.  We  are  responsible  for  our  volitions  because  they 
depend  on  our  principles  and  feelings  ;  and  we  are  responsible  for 
our  feelings  and  for  those  states  of  mind  which  constitute  character, 
because  (within  the  sphere  of  morals  and  religion)  they  are  right 
or  wrong  in  their  own  nature.  The  fact  that  the  affections  and 
permanent  and  even  immanent  states  of  the  mind  are  beyond  the 
power  of  the  will  does  not  (as  has  been  repeatedly  shown  in  these 
pages),  remove  them  out  of  the  sphere  of  moral  obligation.  As 
this  is  attested  by  Scripture  and  by  the  general  judgment  of  men, 
the  assumed  axiom  that  ability  limits  obligation  in  the  sphere  of 
morals  cannot  be  admitted. 

Moral  obligation  being  founded  upon  the  possession  of  the  attrib- 
utes of  a  moral  agent,  reason,  conscience,  and  will,  it  remains  un- 
impaired so  long  as  these  attributes  remain.  If  reason  be  lost  all 
responsibility  for  character  or  conduct  ceases.  If  the  consciousness 
of  the  difference  between  right  and  wrong,  the  capacity  to  perceive 
moral  distinctions  does  not  exist  in  a  creature  or  does  not  belong 
to  its  nature,  that  creature  is  not  the  subject  of  moral  obligation ; 
and  in  like  manner  if  he  is  not  an  agent,  is  not  invested  with  the 
faculty  of  spontaneous  activity  as  a  personal  being,  he  ceases,  so 
far  as  his  conscious  states  are  concerned,  to  be  responsible  for  what 
he  is  or  does.  Since  the  Scriptural  and  Augustinian  doctrine  ad- 
mits that  man  since  the  fall  retains  his  reason,  conscience,  and  will, 
it  leaves  the  grounds  of  responsibility  for  character  and  conduct 
unimpaired. 

It  does  not  weaken  the  Motives  to  Exertion. 

2.  Another  popular  objection  to  the  Scriptural  doctrine  on  this 
subject  is,  that  it  destroys  all  rational  grounds  on  which  rests  the 
use  of  the  means  of  grace.  If  we  cannot  accomplish  a  given  end, 
why  should  we  use  the  means  for  its  accomplishment  ?  So  the 
farmer  might  say,  If  I  cannot  secure  a  harvest,  why  should  I  culti- 
vate my  fields  ?  In  every  department  of  human  activity  the  result 
depends  on  the  cooperation  of  causes  over  which  man  has  no  con- 
trol. He  is  expected  to  use  the  means  adapted  to  the  desired  end, 
and  trust  for  the  cooperation  of  other  agencies  without  which  his 


276  PART  II.   Ch.  vin.  — sin. 

own  efforts  are  of  no  avail.  The  Scriptural  grounds  on  which  we 
are  bound  to  use  the  means  of  grace  are,  (1.)  The  command  of 
God.  This  of  itself  is  enough.  If  there  were  no  apparent  adapta- 
tion of  the  means  to  the  end,  and  no  connection  which  we  could 
discover  between  them,  the  command  of  God  would  be  a  sufficient 
reason  and  motive  for  their  diligent  use.  There  was  no  natural 
adaptation  in  the  waters  of  the  Jordan  to  heal  the  leprosy,  or  in 
those  of  the  pool  of  Siloam  to  restore  sight  to  the  blind.  It  had, 
however,  been  fatal  folly  on  the  part  of  Naaman  to  refuse  on  that 
account  to  obey  the  command  to  bathe  himself  seven  times  ;  and 
in  the  blind  man  to  refuse  to  wash  in  the  pool  as  Jesus  directed. 
(2.)  If  the  command  of  God  is  enough  even  when  there  is  no  appar- 
ent connection  between  the  means  and  the  end,  much  more  is  it 
enough  when  the  means  have  a  natural  adaptation  to  the  end.  We 
can  see  such  adaptation  in  the  department  of  nature,  and  it  is  no  less 
apparent  in  that  of  grace.  There  is  an  intimate  connection  between 
truth  and  holiness,  as  between  sowing  the  grain  and  reaping  the 
harvest.  Man  sows  but  God  gives  the  increase  in  the  one  case  as 
well  as  in  the  other.  (3.)  There  is  not  only  this  natural  adapta- 
tion of  the  means  of  grace  to  the  end  to  be  accomplished,  but  in  all 
ordinary  cases,  the  end  is  not  attained  otherwise  than  through  the 
use  of  those  means.  Men  are  not  saved  without  the  truth.  Those 
who  do  not  seek  fail  to  find.  Those  who  refuse  to  ask  do  not 
receive.  This  is  as  much  the  ordinary  course  of  the  divine  ad- 
ministration in  the  kingdom  of  grace,  as  in  the  kingdom  of  nature. 
(4.)  There  is  not  only  this  visible  connection  between  the  means 
of  grace  and  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  as  a  fact  of  experience,  but 
the  express  promise  of  God  that  those  who  seek  shall  find,  that 
those  who  ask  shall  receive,  and  that  to  those  who  knock  it  shall  be 
opened.  More  than  this  cannot  be  rationally  demanded.  It  is 
more  than  is  given  to  the  men  of  the  world  to  stimulate  them  in 
their  exertions  to  secure  wealth  or  knowledge.  The  doctrine  of 
inability,  therefore,  does  not  impair  the  force  of  any  of  the  motives 
which  should  determine  sinners  to  use  all  diligence  in  seeking  their 
own  salvation  in  the  way  which  God  has  appointed. 

The  Doctrine  does  not  encourage  Delay. 
3.  Still  another  objection  is  everywhere  urged  against  this  doc- 
trine. It  is  said  that  it  encourages  delay.  If  a  man  believes  that 
he  cannot  change  his  heart,  cannot  repent  and  believe  the  gospel,  he 
will  say,  "  I  must  wait  God's  time.  As  He  gives  men  a  new  heart, 
as  faith  and  repentance  are  his  gifts,  I  must  wait  until  He  is  pleased 


> 


§  15.  J  INABILITY.  277 

to  bestow  those  gifts  on  me."  No  doubt  Satan  does  tempt  men 
thus  to  argue  and  tlius  to  act,  as  he  tempts  them  in  other  ways  to 
egregious  folly.  The  natural  tendency  of  the  doctrine  in  question, 
however,  is  directly  the  reverse.  When  a  man  is  convinced  that 
the  attainment  of  a  desirable  end  is  beyond  the  compass  of  iiis  own 
powers,  he  instinctively  seeks  help  out  of  himself.  If  ill,  if  he 
knows  he  cannot  cure  himself,  he  sends  for  a  ]>hysician.  If  per- 
suaded that  the  disease  is  entirely  under  his  own  control,  and 
especially  if  any  metaphysician  could  persuade  him  that  all  illness 
is  an  idea,  which  can  be  banished  by  a  volition,  then  it  would  be 
folly  in  him  to  seek  aid  from  abroad.  The  blind,  the  deaf,  the 
leprous,  and  the  maimed  who  were  on  earth  when  Christ  was 
present  in  the  flesh,  knew  that  they  could  not  heal  themselves, 
and  therefore  they  went  to  Him  for  help.  No  more  soul-destroy- 
ing doctrine  could  well  be  devised  than  the  doctrine  that  sinners 
can  regenerate  themselves,  and  repent  and  believe  just  when  they 
please.  Those  who  really  embrace  such  a  doctrine  would  never 
apply  to  the  only  source  whence  these  blessings  can  in  fact  be 
obtained.  They  would  be  led  to  defer  to  the  last  moment  of  life  a 
work  which  was  entirely  in  their  own  hands  and  which  could  be 
accomplished  in  a  moment.  A  miser  on  his  death-bed  may  by  a 
volition  give  away  all  his  wealth.  If  a  sinner  could  as  easily  change 
his  own  heart,  he  would  be  apt  to  cleave  to  the  world  as  the  miser 
to  his  wealth,  till  the  last  moment.  All  truth  tends  to  godliness ; 
all  error  to  sin  and  death.  As  it  is  a  truth  both  of  Scripture  and  of 
experience  that  the  unrenewed  man  can  do  nothing  of  himself  to 
secure  his  salvation,  it  is  essential  that  he  should  be  brought  to  a 
practical  conviction  of  that  truth.  When  thus  convinced,  and 
not  before,  he  seeks  help  from  the  only  source  whence  it  can  be 
obtained. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

FREE  AGENCY. 

In  all  discussions  concerning  sin  and  grace,  the  question  con- 
cerning the  nature  and  necessary  conditions  of  free  agency  is  of 
necessity  involved.  This  is  one  of  the  points  in  which  theology 
and  psychology  come  into  immediate  contact.  There  is  a  theory 
of  free  agency  with  which  the  doctrines  of  original  sin  and  of  effi- 
cacious grace  are  utterly  irreconcilable,  and  there  is  another  theory 
with  which  those  doctrines  are  perfectly  consistent.  In  all  ages  of 
the  Church,  therefore,  those  who  have  adopted  the  former  of  these 
theories,  reject  those  doctrines ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  those  who 
are  constrained  to  believe  those  doctrines,  are  no  less  constrained 
to  adopt  the  other  and  congenial  theory  of  free  agency.  Pelagians, 
Semi-Pelagians,  and  Remonstrants  are  not  more  notoriously  at  va- 
riance with  Augustinians,  Lutherans,  and  Calvinists,  on  the  doc- 
trines of  sin  and  grace,  than  they  are  on  the  metaphysical  and 
moral  question  of  human  liberty.  In  every  system  of  theology, 
therefore,  there  is  a  chapter  De  libera  arhitrio.  This  is  a  question 
which  every  theologian  finds  in  his  path,  and  which  he  must  dis- 
pose of;  and  on  the  manner  in  which  it  is  determined  depends  his 
theology,  and  of  course  his  religion,  so  far  as  his  theology  is  to  him 
a  truth  and  reality. 

It  may  seem  preposterous  to  attempt,  in  the  compass  of  a  few 
pages,  the  discussion  of  a  question  on  which  so  many  volumes  have 
been  written.  There  is,  however,  this  important  difference  between 
all  subjects  whicii  relate  to  the  soul,  or  the  world  within,  and  those 
which  relate  to  the  external  workl :  with  regard  to  the  former,  all 
the  materials  of  knowledge  being  facts  of  consciousness,  are  already 
in  our  possession ;  whereas,  in  regard  to  the  latter,  the  facts  have 
first  to  be  collected.  In  questions,  therefore,  which  relate  to  tiie 
mind,  a  mere  statement  of  the  case  is  often  all  that  is  required,  and 
all  that  can  be  given.  If  that  statement  be  correct,  the  facts  of 
consciousness  spontaneously  arrange  themselves  in  order  around  it ; 
if  it  be  incorrect,  they  obstinately  refuse  to  be  thus  marshalled.  If 
this  be  so,  why  is  it  that  men  difier  so  much  about  these  questions  ? 
To  this  it  may  be  answered,  — 

1.  That  they  do  not  differ  so  much  as  they  appear  to.     When 


FREE   AGENCY.  279 

the  mind  is  left  undisturbed,  and  allowed  to  act  according  to  its 
own  laws,  men,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  think  alike  on  all 
the  great  questions  about  which  philosophers  are  divided.  It  is 
only  when  they  stir  up  the  placid  lake,  and  attempt  to  sound  its 
depths,  to  analyze  its  waters,  to  determine  the  laws  of  its  currents, 
and  to  ascertain  its  contents,  that  they  see  and  think  so  differently. 
However  men  may  differ  in  their  speculative  opinions  as  to  the 
ultimate  nature  of  matter,  they  all  practically  feel  and  act  in  the 
same  way  in  everything  which  concerns  its  application  and  use. 
And  however  they  may  differ  as  to  the  question  of  liberty  or  ne- 
cessity, they  agree  in  regarding  themselves  and  others  as  respon- 
sible agents. 

2.  On  no  subject  is  the  ambiguity  of  language  a  more  serious 
impediment,  in  the  way  of  conscious  agreement,  than  in  reference 
to  this  whole  department,  and  especially  in  regard  to  the  question 
of  free  agency.  Tbe  same  statement  often  appears  tnie  to  one 
mind  and  false  to  another,  because  it  is  understood  differently, 
Tiiis  ambiguity  arises  partly  from  the  inherent  imperfection  of 
human  language.  Words  have,  and  must  have  more  than  one 
sense  ;  and  although  we  may  define  our  terms,  and  state  in  which 
of  its  several  senses  we  use  a  given  word,  yet  the  exigencies  of 
language,  or  inattention,  almost  unavoidably  lead  to  its  being  em- 
ployed in  some  other  of  its  legitimate  meanings.  Besides,  the 
states  of  mind  which  these  terms  are  employed  to  designate,  are 
themselves  so  complex  that  no  words  can  accurately  represent 
them.  We  have  terms  to  express  the  operations  of  the  intellect, 
others  to  designate  the  feelincjs,  and  others  again  for  acts  of  the 
will ;  but  thousands  of  our  acts  include  the  exercise  of  the  intellect, 
the  sensibility,  and  the  will,  and  it  is  absolutely  impossible  to  find 
words  for  all  these  complex  and  varying  states  of  mind.  It  is  not 
wonderful,  therefore,  that  men  should  misunderstand  each  other, 
and  fail  in  their  most  strenuous  efforts  to  express  what  they  mean 
so  that  others  shall  attach  precisely  the  same  sense  to  the  words 
which  they  use. 

3.  There  is  another  reason  for  the  diversity  of  opinion  which  has 
ever  prevailed  on  all  subjects  connected  with  free  agency.  Al- 
though the  facts  which  should  determine  the  questions  discussed  are 
facts  of  consciousness  common  to  all  men,  yet  they  are  so  numer- 
ous, and  of  such  different  kinds,  that  it  is  hard  to  allow  each  its 
due  place  and  importance.  From  habit,  or  mental  training,  or 
from  the  moral  state  of  mind,  some  men  allow  too  much  weight  to 
one  class  of  these  facts,  and  too  little  to  another.     Some  are  gov- 


280  PART  II.     Ch.   IX.— free   agency. 

erned  by  their  understanding,  others  by  their  moral  feelings.  In 
some  the  moral  sensibilities  are  much  more  lively  and  informing 
than  in  othei's.  Some  adopt  certain  principles  as  axioms  to  which 
they  force  all  their  judgments  to  conform.  It  is  vain  to  hope, 
therefox'e,  that  we  shall  ever  find  all  men  of  one  mind,  on  even  the 
plainest  and  most  important  questions  relating  to  the  constitution 
and  laws  of  their  own  nature.  There  is  but  one  sure  guide,  and 
but  one  path  to  either  truth  or  unity,  the  Spirit  and  word  of  God ; 
and  happy  are  those  who  submit  to  be  led  by  that  guide,  and  to 
walk  in  that  path. 

§  1.  Different  Theories  of  the  Will. 

All  the  different  theories  of  the  will  may  be  included  under  the 
three  classes  of  Necessity,  Contingency,  and  Certainty. 

Necessiti/. 

To  the  first  of  these  classes  belong :  — 

1.  The  doctrine  of  Fatalism,  which  teaches  that  all  events  are 
determined  by  a  blind  necessity.  This  necessity  does  not  arise 
from  the  will  of  an  intelligent  Being  governing  all  his  creatures 
and  all  their  acts  according  to  their  nature,  and  for  purposes  of  wis- 
dom and  goodness ;  but  from  a  law  of  sequence  to  which  God  (or 
rather  the  gods)  as  well  as  men  is  subject.  It  pi-ecludes  tlie  idea 
of  foresight  or  plan,  or  of  the  voluntary  selection  of  an  end,  and 
the  adoption  of  means  for  its  accomplishment.  Things  are  as  they 
are,  and  must  be  as  they  are,  and  are  to  be,  without  any  rational 
cause.  This  theory  ignores  any  distinction  between  physical  laws 
and  free  agency.  The  acts  of  men  and  the  operations  of  nature 
are  determined  by  a  necessity  of  the  same  kind.  Events  are  like 
a  mighty  stream  borne  onward  by  a  resistless  force,  —  a  force  out- 
side of  themselves,  which  cannot  be  controlled  or  modified.  All 
we  have  to  do  is  to  acquiesce  in  being  thus  carried  on.  Whether 
we  acquiesce  or  not  makes  no  difference.  A  man  falling  from  a 
precipice  cannot  by  an  act  of  will  counteract  the  force  of  gravity  ; 
neither  can  he  in  any  way  control  or  modify  the  action  of  fate. 
His  outward  circumstances  and  inward  acts  are  all  equally  deter- 
mined by  an  inexorable  law  or  influence  residing  out  of  himself. 
This  at  least  is  one  form  of  fatalism.  This  view  of  the  doctrine  of 
necessity  may  rest  on  the  assumption  that  the  universe  has  the 
ground  of  its  existence  in  itself,  and  is  governed  in  all  its  opera- 
tions by  fixed  laws,  which  determine  the  sequence  of  all  events  in 
the  mineral,  vegetable,  and  animal  kingdom,  by  a  like  necessity. 


\ 


§  1.]  DIFFERENT   THEORIES   OF   THE  WILL.  281 

Or  it  may  admit  that  the  world  owed  its  existence  to  an  inteHigent 
first  cause,  but  assume  that  its  author  never  designed  to  create  free 
agents,  but  determined  to  set  in  operation  certain  causes  which 
should  work  out  given  results.  However  fatalists  may  differ  as  to 
the  cause  of  the  necessity  which  governs  all  events,  they  agree  as 
to  its  nature.  It  may  arise  from  the  influence  of  the  stars,  as  the 
ancient  Chaldeans  held ;  or  from  the  operation  of  second  causes, 
or  from  the  original  constitution  of  things ;  or  from  the  decree  of 
God.  It  avowedly  precludes  all  liberty  of  action,  and  reduces  the 
acts  of  men  to  the  same  category  with  those  of  irrational  animals. 
Properly  speaking,  however,  fatalism  refers  this  necessity  to  fate,— 
an  unintelligent  cause. 

2.  A  second  form  of  the  doctrine  of  necessity,  is  the  mechanical 
theory.  This  denies  that  man  is  the  efficient  cause  of  his  own  acts. 
It  represents  him  as  passive,  or  as  endued  with  no  higher  form  of 
activity  than  spontaneity.  It  avowedly  precludes  the  idea  of  re- 
sponsibility. It  assumes  that  the  inward  state  of  man,  and  conse- 
quently his  acts,  are  determined  by  his  outward  circumstances. 
This  doctrine  as  connected  with  the  materialism  of  Hobbes,  Hart- 
ley, Priestley,  Belsham,  and  especially  as  fully  developed  by  the 
French  Encyclopaedists,  supposes  that  from  the  constitution  of  our 
nature,  some  things  give  us  pain,  others  pleasure  ;  some  excite  de- 
sire, and  others  aversion  ;  and  that  this  susceptibility  of  being  acted 
upon  is  all  the  activity  which  belongs  to  man,  who  is  as  purely  a 
piece  of  living  mechanism  as  the  irrational  animals.  A  certain  ex- 
ternal object  produces  a  corresponding  impression  on  the  nerves, 
that  is  transmitted  to  the  brain,  and  an  answering  impulse  is  sent 
back  to  the  muscles ;  or  the  effect  is  spent  on  the  brain  itself  in  the 
form  of  thought  or  feeling  thereby  excited  or  evolved.  The  gen- 
eral features  of  this  theory  are  the  same  so  far  as  its  advocates 
ignore  any  distinction  between  physical  ■  and  moral  necessity,  and 
reject  the  doctrine  of  free  agency  and  responsibility,  however  much 
they  may  differ  on  other  points. 

3.  A  third  form  of  necessity  includes  all  those  theories  which 
supersede  the  efficiency  of  second  causes,  by  referring  all  events  to 
the  immediate  agency  of  the  first  cause.  This  of  course  is  done 
by  Pantheism  in  all  its  forms,  whether  it  merely  makes  God  the 
soul  of  the  world,  and  refers  all  the  operations  of  nature  and  all 
the  actions  of  men  to  his  immediate  agency ;  or  whether  it  regards 
the  world  itself  as  God  ;  or  whether  it  makes  God  the  only  sub- 
stance of  which  nature  and  mind  are  the  phenomena.  According 
to  all  these  views,  God  is  the  only  agent ;  all  activity  is  but  differ- 
ent modes  in  which  the  activity  of  God  manifests  itself. 


282  PART  n.    Ch.  IX.  -  FREE  AGENCY. 

The  theory  of  occasional  causes  leads  to  the  same  result.  Ac- 
cording to  this  doctrine,  all  efficiency  is  in  God.  Second  causes 
are  only  the  occasions  on  whicli  that  efficiency  is  exerted.  Al- 
though this  system  allows  a  real  existence  to  matter  and  mind,  and 
admits  that  they  are  endowed  with  certain  qualities  and  attributes, 
yet  these  are  nothing  more  than  susceptibilities,  or  receptivities  for 
the  manifestation  of  the  divine  efficiency.  They  furnish  the  occa- 
sions for  the  exercise  of  the  all-pervading  power  of  God.  Matter 
and  mind  are  alike  passive  :  all  the  changes  in  the  one,  and  all  the 
appearance  of  activity  in  the  other,  are  due  to  God's  immediate 
operation. 

Under  the  same  head  belongs  the  doctrine  that  the  agency  of 
God  in  the  preservation  of  the  world  is  a  continuous  creation. 
This  mode  of  representation  is  indeed  often  adopted  as  a  figure  of 
speech  by  orthodox  theologians  ;  but  if  taken  literally  it  implies  the 
absohite  inefficiency  of  all  second  causes.  If  God  creates  the  out- 
ward world  at  every  successive  moment,  He  must  be  the  immediate 
author  of  all  its  clianges.  There  is  no  connection  between  what 
precedes  and  what  follows,  between  antecedent  and  consequent, 
cause  and  effiict,  but  succession  in  time  ;  and  when  applied  to  the 
inward  world,  or  the  soul,  the  same  consequence  of  necessity  fol- 
lows. The  soul,  at  any  given  moment,  exists  only  in  a  certain 
state  ;  if  in  that  state  it  is  created,  then  the  creative  energy  is  the 
immediate  cause  of  all  its  feelings,  cognitions,  and  acts.  The  soul 
is  not  an  agent ;  it  is  only  something  which  God  creates  in  a  given 
form.  All  continuity  of  being,  all  identity,  and  all  efficiency  are 
lost ;  and  the  universe  of  matter  and  mind  becomes  nothing  more 
than  the  continued  pulsation  of  the  life  of  God. 

Nearly  allied  with  the  doctrine  of  a  continued  creation  is  the 
"exercise  scheme."  According  to  this  theory  the  soul  is  a  series 
of  exercises  created  by  God.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  the  soul, 
no  self,  but  only  certain  perceptions  which  succeed  each  other  with 
amazing  rapidity.  Hume  denies  any  real  cause.  All  we  know  is 
that  these  perceptions  exist,  and  exist  in  succession.  Emmons  says, 
God  creates  them.  It  is  of  course  in  vain  to  speak  of  the  liberty 
of  man  in  producing  the  creative  acts  of  God.  If  He  creates  our 
volitions  in  view  of  motives,  they  are  his  acts  and  not  ours.  The 
diffi?rence  between  this  system  and  Pantheism  is  little  more  than 

nominal. 

Contingency. 

Directly  opposed  to  all  these  schemes  of  necessity,  is  the  doctrine 
of  contingency,  which  has  been  held  under  different  names  and 


§].]  DIFFERENT   THEORIES   OF   THE  WILL.  283 

variously  modified.  Sometimes  it  is  called  the  liberty  of  indiffer- 
ence ;  by  which  is  meant,  that  the  will,  at  the  moment  of  decision, 
is  self-poised  among  conflicting  motives,  and  decides  one  way  or 
the  other,  not  because  of  the  greater  influence  of  one  motive  over 
others,  but  because  it  is  indifferent  or  undetermined,  able  to  act  in 
accordance  with  the  weaker  against  the  stronger  motive,  or  even 
without  any  motive  at  all.  Sometimes  this  doctrine  is  expressed  by 
the  phrase,  self-determining  power  of  the  will.  By  this  it  is  intended 
to  deny  that  the  will  is  determined  by  motives,  and  to  aflSrm  that 
the  reason  of  its  decisions  is  to  be  sought  in  itself.  It  is  a  cause 
and  not  an  effect,  and  therefore  requires  nothing  out  of  itself  to 
account  for  its  acts.  Sometimes  this  doctrine  is  called  the  power 
of  contrary  choice  ;  that  is,  that  in  every  volition  there  is  and  must 
be  power  to  the  contrary.  Even  supposing  all  antecedents  exter- 
nal and  internal  to  have  been  precisely  the  same,  the  decision 
might  have  been  the  reverse  of  what  it  actually  was.  Contingence 
is  therefore  necessary  to  liberty.  This  is  the  essential  idea  of  this 
theory  in  all  its  forms.  A  contingent  event  is  one  which  may  or 
may  not  happen.  Contingence,  therefore,  is  opposed  not  merely 
to  necessity,  but  also  to  certainty.  If  a  man  may  act  in  opposition 
to  all  motives,  external  and  internal,  and  in  despite  of  all  influence 
which  can  be  exerted  on  him,  short  of  destroying  his  liberty,  then 
it  must  forever  remain  uncertain  how  he  will  act.  The  advocates 
of  this  theory  of  liberty,  therefore,  maintain,  that  the  will  is  inde- 
pendent of  reason,  of  feeling,  and  of  God.  There  is  no  middle 
ground,  they  say,  between  contingency''  Qi.  e.,  uncertainty),  and 
fatalism  ;  between  the  independence  of  the  will  and  of  the  agent, 
and  the  denial  of  all  free  agency. 

Although  the  advocates  of  the  liberty  of  contingency  generally 
direct  their  arguments  against  the  doctrine  of  necessity,  yet  it  is 
apparent  that  they  regard  certainty  no  less  than  necessity  to  be 
inconsistent  with  liberty.  This  is  plain,  (1.)  From  the  designa- 
tions which  they  give  their  theory,  as  liberty  of  indifference,  self- 
determining  power  of  the  will,  power  to  the  contrary.  (2.)  From 
their  formal  definition  of  liberty,  as  the  power  to  decide  for  or 
against,  or  without  motives  ;  or  it  is  power  of  "  willing  what  we 
will."  "  If,"  says  Reid,  "  in  every  voluntary  action,  the  determi- 
nation of  his  will  be  the  necessary  consequence  of  something  in- 
voluntary in  the  state  of  his  mind,  or  of  something  in  the  external 
circumstances  of  the  agent,  he  is  not  free."i     Cousin  says,  "The 

1  Active  Powers,  Essay  iv.  ch.  1;   Works,  p.  599,  Sir  W.  Hamilton'a  edition,  Edinburgh, 
1849. 


284  PART  n.   Ch.  IX.  — free  agency. 

will  is  mine,  and  I  dispose  absolutely  of  it  witliin  the  limits  of  the 
spiritual  world."  ^  The  Scotists  of  the  Middle  Ages,  Molina  and 
the  Jesuits  as  a  class,  and  all  the  opponents  of  Augustinianism, 
define  liberty  as  consisting  in  indifference,  or  in  the  independence 
of  the  will  of  the  preceding  state  of  the  mind,  and  make  it  to  ex- 
clude certainty  no  less  than  necessity.  (3.)  From  the  arguments  ' 
by  which  they  endeavour  to  sustain  their  theory,  which  are  directed 
as  often  against  certainty  as  against  necessity.  (4.)  From  their 
answers  to  opposing  arguments,  and  especially  to  that  derived  from 
the  foreknowledge  of  God.  As  the  foreknowledge  of  an  act  sup- 
poses the  certainty  of  its  occurrence,  if  free  acts  are  known,  they 
must  be  certain.  To  this  the  advocates  of  the  theory  in  question 
make  such  answers  as  show  that  certainty  is  what  they  are  con- 
tending against.  They  say  that  we  have  no  right  to  argue  on  this 
subject  from  the  attributes  of  God  ;  it  is  a  simple  matter  of  con- 
sciousness ;  or  they  say,  that  God's  foreknowledge  may  be  limited, 
just  as  his  power  is  limited  by  impossibilities.  If  it  be  impossible 
to  foreknow  free  acts,  they  are  not  the  objects  of  knowledge,  and, 
therefore,  not  to  foreknow  them  is  not  a  limitation  of  the  divine 
knowledge.  From  these  and  other  considerations,  it  is  plain  that 
the  theory  of  contingenc}'  in  all  its  forms,  is  opposed  to  the  doctrine 
of  certainty  no  less  than  to  that  of  necessity,  in  the  proper  sense  of 
that  term.  By  this,  however,  it  is  not  meant  that  the  advocates 
of  contingency  are  consistent  as  to  this  point.  Arguing  against 
necessity,  they  frequently  do  not  discriminate  between  physical 
and  moral  necessity.  They  class  Hobbes,  Hartley,  Priestley, 
Belsham,  Collins,  Edwards,  the  French  Encyclopaedists,  and  all 
who  use  the  word  necessity,  under  the  same  category ;  and  yet 
they  cannot  avoid  admitting,  that  in  many  cases  free  acts  may  be 
certain.  They  very  often  say  that  particular  arguments  prove 
certainty  but  not  necessity  ;  when  certainty  is  precisely  the  thing 
contended  for,  and  which  they  themselves  deny.  This  is  one  of 
the  unavoidable  inconsistencies  of  error.  No  one,  however,  not- 
withstanding these  admissions,  will  dispute  that  the  theory  of  con- 
tingence,  whether  called  indifference,  self-determining  power  of  the 
will,  power  of  contrary  choice,  or  by  any  other  name,  is  in  fact, 
and  is  intended  to  be,  antagonistic  to  that  of  certainty. 

Certainty. 

The   third  general  theory  on  this  subject  is   separated   by  an 
equal  distance  from  the  doctrine  of  necessity  on  tlie  one  hand,  and 

1  Elements  of  Psychology,  p.  357,  Henry's  translation,  4tli  edit.,  New  York,  1856. 


§  1.]  DIFFERENT   THEORIES  OF   THE   WILL.  285 

from  that  of  contingency  on  the  other.  It  teaches  that  a  man  is 
free  not  only  when  his  outward  acts  are  determined  by  his  will,  but 
when  his  volitions  are  truly  and  properly  his  own,  determined  by 
nothing  out  of  himself  but  proceeding  from  his  own  views,  feelings, 
and  immanent  dispositions,  so  that  they  are  the  real,  intelligent, 
and  conscious  expression  of  his  character,  or  of  what  is  in  his  mind. 
This  theory  is  often  called  the  theory  of  moral  or  philosophical, 
as  distinguished  from  physical,  necessity.  This  is  a  most  unfortu- 
nate and  unsuitable  designation.  (1.)  Because  liberty  and  necessity 
are  directly  opposed.  It  is  a  contradiction  to  say  that  an  act  is  free 
and  yet  necessary ;  that  man  is  a  free  agent,  and  yet  that  all  his 
acts  are  determined  by  a  law  of  necessity.  As  all  the  advocates 
of  the  theory  in  question  profess  to  believe  in  the  freedom  of  the 
human  will,  or  that  man  is  a  free  agent,  it  is  certainly  to  be  regret- 
ted that  they  should  use  language  which  in  its  ordinary  and  proper 
sense  teaches  directly  the  reverse.  (2.)  Certainty  and  necessity 
are  not  the  same,  and  therefore  they  should  not  be  expressed  by 
the  same  word.  The  necessity  with  which  a  stone  falls  to  the 
ground,  and  the  certainty  with  Avhich  a  perfectly  holy  being  con- 
firmed in  a  state  of  grace  will  act  holily,  are  as  different  as  day  and 
night.  Applying  the  same  term  to  express  things  essentially  distinct 
tends  to  confound  the  things  themselves.  A  man  may  be  forced  to 
do  a  thing  against  his  will,  but  to  say  he  can  be  forced  to  will  against 
his  will  is  a  contradiction.  A  necessary  volition  is  no  volition,  any 
more  than  white  is  black.  Because  in  popular  language  we  often 
speak  of  a  thing  as  necessary  when  it  is  absolutely  certain,  and 
although  the  Scriptures,  written  in  the  language  of  ordinary  life, 
often  do  the  same  thing,  is  no  reason  why  in  philosophical  discussions 
the  word  should  be  so  used  as  unavoidably  to  mislead.  (3.)  Using 
the  word  necessity  to  express  the  idea  of  certainty  brings  the  truth 
into  reproach.  It  clothes  it  in  the  garb  of  error.  It  makes  Edwards 
use  the  language  of  Hobbes.  It  puts  Luther  into  the  category  with 
Spinoza  ;  all  Augustinians  into  the  same  class  with  the  French  ma- 
terialists. They  all  use  the  same  language,  though  their  meaning 
is  as  diverse  as  possible.  They  all  say  that  the  acts  of  men  are 
necessary.  When  they  come  to  explain  themselves,  the  one  class 
says  they  are  truly  and  properly  necessary  in  such  a  sense  that 
they  are  not  free,  and  that  they  preclude  the  possibility  of  moral 
character  or  responsibility.  The  other  class  say  that  they  are 
necessary,  but  in  such  a  sense  as  to  be  nevertheless  free  and  per- 
fectly consistent  with  the  moral  responsibility  of  the  agent.  It  is 
certainly  a  great  evil  that  theories  diametrically  opposed  to  each 


286  PART  11.    Ch.  IX. -free   agency. 

otlier,  that  the  doctrine  of  saints,  and  the  doctrine  of  devils  (to  use 
Paul's  language)  should  be  expressed  in  the  same  words.  We 
accordingly  find  the  most  respectable  writers,  as  Reid  and  Stewart, 
arguing  against  Edwards  as  though  he  held  the  doctrine  of 
Belsham. 

By  the  old  Latin  writers  the  theory  of  moral  certainty  is  com- 
monly designated  Luhentia  Rationalise  or  Rational  Spontaneity. 
This  is  a  much  more  appropriate  designation.  It  implies  that  in 
every  volition  there  are  the  elements  of  rationality  and  spontaneous 
action.  In  brutes  there  is  a  spontaneity  but  no  reason,  and  there- 
fore they  are  not  free  agents  in  such  a  sense  as  to  be  the  objects 
of  approbation  or  disapprobation.  In  maniacs  also  there  is  self- 
determination,  but  it  is  irrational,  and  therefore  not  free.  But 
wherever  reason  and  the  power  of  self-determination  or  spontaneity 
are  combined  in  an  agent,  he  is  free  and  responsible  for  his  outward 
acts  and  for  his  volitions.  This  representation  would  satisfy  Reid, 
who  says,  "  We  see  evidently  that,  as  reason  without  active  power 
can  do  nothing,  so  active  power  without  reason  has  no  guide  to 
direct  it  to  any  end.     These  two  conjoined  make  moral  liberty."  ^ 

The  old  writers,  in  developing  their  doctrine  of  rational  spon- 
taneity were  accustomed  to  say,  the  will  is  determined  by  the  last 
judgment  of  the  understanding.  This  is  true  or  false  as  the  lan- 
guage is  interpreted.  If  by  the  last  judgment  of  the  understanding 
be  meant  the  intellectual  apprehension  and  conviction  of  the  rea- 
sonableness and  excellence  of  the  object  of  choice,  then  none  but 
the  perfectly  reasonable  and  good  are  always  thus  determined. 
Men  in  a  multitude  of  cases  choose  that  which  their  understanding 
condemns  as  wicked,  trifling,  or  destructive.  Or  if  the  meaning 
be  that  every  free  act  is  the  result  of  conscious  deliberation,  and 
consequent  decision  of  the  mind  as  to  the  desirableness  of  a  given 
act,  then  again  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  will  follows  the  last  dictate 
of  the  understanding.  It  is  in  reference  probably  to  one  or  both 
of  these  interpretations  of  the  language  in  question  that  Leibnitz 
says:  "Non  semper  sequimur  judicium  ultimum  intellectus  practici, 
dum  ad  volendum  nos  determinamus  ;  at  ubi  volumus,  semper  se- 
quimur collectionem  omnium  inclinationum,  tarn  a  parte  rationum, 
tam  passionum,  profectarum  ;  id  quod  saepenumero  sine  express© 
intellectus  judicio  contingit.''^  But  what  is  really  meant  by  this 
expression  is  that  the  views  or  feelings  which  determine  the  will 
are  themselves  determined  by  the  understanding.     If  I  desire  any- 

1  Active  Potcers,  Essay  iv.  ch.  5;  Works,  Edinburgh,  3  849,  p.  61?) 

2  Wofks,  edit,  (itiieva,  1708,  vol.  i.  p.  156. 


§1.]  DIFFERENT  THEORIES   OF   THE  WILL.  287 

thing,  it  is  because  I  apprehend  it  as  suitable  to  satisfy  some 
craving  of  my  nature.  If  I  will  anything  because  it  is  right,  its 
being  right  is  something  for  the  understanding  to  discern.  In  other 
words,  all  the  desires,  affections,  or  feelings  which  determine  the 
will  to  act  must  have  an  object,  and  that  object  by  which  the  feeling 
is  excited  and  towards  which  it  tends,  must  be  discerned  by  the 
understanding.  It  is  this  that  gives  them  their  rational  character, 
and  renders  the  determinations  of  the  will  rational.  Any  volition 
which  does  not  follow  the  last  dictate  of  the  understanding,  in  this 
sense  of  the  words,  is  the  act  of  an  idiot.  It  may  be  spontaneous, 
just  as  the  acts  of  brutes  are,  but  it  cannot  be  free  in  the  sense  of 
being  the  act  of  an  accountable  person. 

Another  form  under  which  this  doctrine  is  often  expressed  is, 
that  the  will  is  as  the  greatest  apparent  good.  This  is  a  very 
common  mode  of  stating  the  doctrine,  derived  from  Leibnitz,  the 
father  of  optimism,  whose  whole  "  Theodic^e  "  is  founded  on  the 
assumption  that  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good. 
By  "  good,"  writers  of  this  class  generally  mean  "  adapted  to  pro- 
duce happiness,"  which  is  regarded  as  the  summum  honum.  Their 
doctrine  is  that  the  will  always  decides  in  favour  of  what  promises 
the  greatest  happiness.  It  is  not  the  greatest  real,  but  the  greatest 
apparent  good  which  is  said  to  determine  the  volition.  A  single 
draught  from  the  bowl  may  appear  to  the  drunkard,  in  the  intensity 
of  his  craving,  a  greater  good,  ^.  e.,  as  better  suited  to  relieve  and 
satisfy  him,  than  the  welfare  of  himself  or  family  for  life.  This 
whole  theory  is  founded  on  the  assimiption  that  happiness  is  the 
highest  end,  and  that  the  desire  of  happiness  is  the  ultimate  spring 
of  all  voluntary  action.  As  both  of  these  principles  are  abhorrent 
to  the  great  mass  of  cultivated,  and  especially  of  Christian  minds ; 
as  men  act  from  other  and  higher  motives  than  a  desire  to  promote 
their  own  happiness,  there  are  few  who,  in  our  day,  will  adopt  the 
doctrine  that  the  will  is  as  the  greatest  apparent  good,  as  thus 
expounded.  If,  however,  the  word  good  be  taken  in  a  more  com- 
prehensive sense,  including  everything  that  is  desirable,  whether 
as  right,  becoming,  or  useful,  as  well  as  suited  to  give  happiness, 
then  the  doctrine  is  no  doubt  true.  The  will  in  point  of  fact  always 
is  determined  in  favour  of  that  which  under  some  aspect,  or  for 
some  reason,  is  regarded  as  good.  Otherwise  men  might  choose 
evil  as  evil,  which  would  violate  a  fundamental  law  of  all  rational 
and  sensuous  natures. 

It  is  still  more  common,  at  least  in  this  country,  to  say  that  the 
will  is  always  determined  by  the  strongest  motive.     To  this  mode 


288  PART  11.     Ch.  IX.  — free   agency. 

of  statement  there  are  two  obvious  objections.  (1.)  The  ambiguity 
of  the  word  motive.  If  that  word  be  taken  in  one  sense,  the  state- 
ment is  true;  if  taken  in  anotlier,  it  is  false.  (2.)  The  impossibility 
of  establishing  any  test  of  the  relative  strength  of  motives.  If  you 
make  vivacity  of  feeling  the  test,  then  it  is  not  true  that  the  strong- 
est motive  always  prevails.  If  you  make  the  effect  the  test,  then 
you  say  that  the  strongest  motive  is  that  which  determines  the 
will,  —  which  amounts  to  saying  that  the  will  is  determined  by 
that  which  determines  it. 

It  is  better  to  abide  by  the  general  statement.  The  will  is  not 
determined  by  any  law  of  necessity  ;  it  is  not  independent,  indiffer- 
ent, or  self-determined,  but  is  always  determined  by  the  preceding 
state  of  mind  ;  so  that  a  man  is  free  so  long  as  his  volitions  are  the 
conscious  expression  of  his  own  mind  ;  or  so  long  as  his  activity  is 
determined  and  controlled  by  his  reason  and  feelings. 

§  2.  Definition  of  Terms. 

Before  proceeding  to  give  an  outline  of  the  usual  arguments  in 
support  of  this  doctrine,  it  is  important  to  state  the  meaning  of  the 
words  employed.  No  one  in  the  least  conversant  with  discussions 
of  this  nature  can  liave  failed  to  remark  how  much  difficulty  arises 
from  the  ambiguity  of  the  terms  employed,  and  how  often  men 
appear  to  differ  in  doctrine,  Avhen  in  fact  they  only  differ  in 
language. 

The  Will. 

First,  the  word  will  itself  is  one  of  those  ambiguous  terms.  It 
is  sometimes  used  in  a  wide  sense,  so  as  to  include  all  the  desires, 
affections,  and  even  emotions.  It  has  this  comprehensive  sense 
when  all  the  faculties  of  the  soul  ai'e  said  to  be  included  under  the 
two  categories  of  understanding  and  will.  Everything,  therefore, 
pertaining  to  the  soul,  that  does  not  belong  to  the  former,  is  said  to 
belong  to  the  latter.  All  liking  and  disliking,  all  preferring,  all 
inclination  and  disinclination,  are  in  this  sense  acts  of  the  will.  At 
other  times,  the  word  is  used  for  the  power  of  self-determination, 
or  for  that  faculty  by  which  we  decide  on  our  acts.  In  this  sense 
only  purposes  and  imperative  volitions  are  acts  of  the  will.  It  is 
obvious  that  if  a  writer  affirms  the  liberty  of  the  will  in  the  latter 
sense,  and  his  reader  takes  the  word  in  the  former,  the  one  can 
never  understand  the  other.  Or  if  the  same  writer  sometimes  uses 
the  word  in  its  wide  and  sometimes  in  its  narrow  sense,  he  will 
inevitably  mislead  himself  and  others.  To  say  that  we  have  power 
over  our  volitions,  and  to  say  that  we  have  power  over  our  desires, 


§2.]  DEFINITION   OF   TERMS.  289 

are  entirely  different  things.  One  of  these  propositions  may  be 
affirmed  and  the  other  denied ;  bnt  if  will  and  desire  are  confounded 
the  distinction  between  these  propositions  is  obliterated.  It  has  often 
been  remarked  that  the  confusion  of  these  two  meanings  of  the 
word  will  is  the  great  defect  of  President  Edwards's  celebrated 
work.  He  starts  with  a  definition  of  the  term,  which  makes  it 
include  all  preferring,  choosing,  being  pleased  or  displeased  with, 
liking  and  disliking,  and  advocates  a  theory  which  is  true,  and 
applicable  only  to  the  will  in  the  restricted  sense  of  the  word. 

Motive. 

Secondly,  The  word  motive  is  often  taken  in  different  senses. 
It  is  defined  to  be  anything  which  has  a  tendency  to  move  the 
mind.  Any  object  adapted  to  awaken  desire  or  affection  ;  any 
truth  or  conception  which  is  suited  to  influence  a  rational  and  sen- 
sitive being  to  a  decision,  is  said  to  be  a  motive.  This  is  what  is 
called  the  objective  sense  of  the  word.  In  this  sense  it  is  very  far 
from  being  true  that  the  will  is  always  determined  by  the  strongest 
motive.  The  most  important  truths,  the  most  weighty  considera- 
tions, the  most  alluring  objects,  are  often  powerless,  so  far  as  the 
internal  state  of  the  mind  is  concerned.  The  word,  however,  is 
often  used  in  a  subjective  sense,  for  those  inward  convictions,  feel- 
ings, inclinations,  and  principles  which  are  in  the  mind  itself,  and 
which  impel  or  influence  the  man  to  decide  one  way  rather  than 
another.  It  is  only  in  this  sense  of  the  term  that  the  will  is  deter- 
mined by  the  strongest  motive.  But  even  then  it  must  be  admit- 
ted, as  before  remarked,  that  we  have  no  criterion  or  standard  by 
which  to  determine  the  relative  strength  of  motives,  other  than 
their  actual  effect.  So  that  to  say  that  the  will  is  determined  by 
the  strongest  motive,  only  means  that  it  is  not  self-determined,  but 
that  in  every  rational  volition  the  man  is  influenced  to  decide  one 
way  rather  than  another,  by  something  within  him,  so  that  the  voli- 
tion is  a  revelation  of  what  he  himself  is. 

Cau8e. 

Thirdly,  The  word  cause  is  no  less  ambiguous.  It  sometimes 
means  the  mere  occasion  ;  sometimes  the  instrument  by  which 
something  is  accomplished  ;  sometimes  the  efficiency  to  which  the 
effect  is  due  ;  sometimes  the  end  for  which  a  thing  is  done,  as  when 
we  speak  of  final  causes  ;  sometimes  the  ground  or  reason  why  the 
effect  or  action  of  the  efficient  cause  is  so  rather  than  otherwise. 
To  say  that  motives  are  the  occasional,  causes  of  volition,  is  consist- 

VOL.   II.  19 


290  PART  n.     Cn.  IX.  — FREE   AGENCY. 

ent  with  any  theory  of  agency,  whether  of  necessity  or  indiffer- 
ence ;  to  say  that  they  are  efficient  causes,  is  to  transfer  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  agent  to  the  motives;  but  to  say  that  tliey  are  tlie 
ground  or  reason  why  the  vohtions  are  what  they  are,  is  only  to 
say  that  every  rational  being,  in  every  voluntary  act,  must  have  a 
reason,  good  or  bad,  for  acting  as  he  does.  Most  of  the  arguments 
against  the  statement  that  motives  are  the  cause  of  volitions,  are 
founded  on  the  assumption  that  they  are  affirmed  to  be  produc- 
ing causes,  and  that  it  is  intended  to  deny  that  the  agent  is  the 
efficient  cause  of  his  own  acts  ;  whereas,  the  meaning  simply  is 
that  motives  are  the  reasons  which  determine  the  ajjent  to  as- 
sert  his  efficiency  in  one  way  rather  than  another.  They  are, 
however,  truly  causes,  in  so  far  as  they  determine  the  effect  to  be 
thus,  and  not  otherwise.  Parental  love  may  induce  a  mother  to 
watch  by  a  sick  child,  and  in  this  sense  is  the  cause  of  her  devo- 
tion, but  she  is  none  the  less  the  efficient  cause  of  all  her  acts  of 
tenderness.  Reid  says,  "  either  the  man  is  the  cause  of  the  action, 
and  then  it  is  a  free  action,  and  is  justly  imputed  to  him,  or  it  must 
have  another  cause,  and  cannot  justly  be  imputed  to  the  man."  i 
This  supposes  that  the  word  cause  has  but  one  sense.  In  the  case 
just  supposed,  the  mother  is  the  efficient,  her  love  the  rational 
cause  or  reason  of  her  acts.  Is  it  a  denial  of  her  free  agency  to 
say  that  her  love  determined  her  will  in  favour  of  attention  instead 
of  neglect? 

Liberty. 

Fourthly,  No  little  ambiguity  aries  from  confounding  liberty  of 
the  will  with  liberty  of  the  agent.  These  forms  of  expression  are 
often  used  as  equivalent.  The  same  thing  is  perhaps  commonly 
intended  by  saying,  "  The  will  is  free,"  and  "  The  agent  is  free." 
It  is  admitted  that  the  same  thought  may  be  properly  expressed  by 
these  phrases.  As  w^e  speak  of  freedom  of  conscience,  when  we 
mean  to  say  that  the  man  is  free  as  to  his  conscience  ;  so  we  may 
speak  of  freedom  of  the  will,  when  all  we  mean  is,  that  the  man  is 
free  in  willing.  The  usage,  however,  which  makes  these  expres- 
sions synonymous  is  liable  to  the  following  objections  :  (1.)  Predi- 
cating liberty  of  the  will  is  apt  to  lead  to  our  conceiving  of  the  will 
as  separated  from  the  agent ;  as  a  distinct  self-acting  power  in  the 
soul.  Or,  if  this  extreme  be  avoided,  which  is  not  always  the  case, 
the  will  is  regarded  as  too  much  detached  from  the  other  faculties 
of  the  soul,  and  as  out  of  sympathy  with  it  in  its  varying  states. 
The  will  is  only  the  soul  willing.     The  soul  is  of  course  a  unit.     A 

I  Active  Powers,  Essay  iv.  ch.  ix. ;  Works,  Edinburgh,  1849,  p.  625. 


§  2.]  DEFINITION   OF   TERMS.  291 

self-determination  is  a  determination  of  the  will,  and  whatever 
leads  to  a  self-decision  leads  to  a  decision  of  the  will.  (2.)  A  sec- 
ond objection  to  confounding  these  expressions  is,  that  they  are  not 
really  equivalent.  The  man  may  be  free,  when  his  will  is  in  bond- 
age. It  is  a  correct  and  established  usage  of  language,  expressive  of 
a  real  fact  of  consciousness,  to  speak  of  an  enslaved  will  in  a  free 
agent.  This  is  not  a  mere  metaphor,  but  a  philosophical  truth. 
He  that  commits  sin  is  the  servant  of  sin.  Long-continued  mental 
or  bodily  habits  may  bring  the  will  into  bondage,  while  the  man 
continues  a  free  agent.  A  man  who  has  been  for  years  a  miser, 
has  his  will  in  a  state  of  slavery,  yet  the  man  is  perfectly  free.  He 
is  self-controlled,  self-determined.  His  avarice  is  himself.  It  is 
his  own  darling,  cherished  feeling.  (3.)  There  is  no  use  to  have 
two  expressions  for  the  same  thing ;  the  one  appropriate,  the  other 
ambiguous.  What  we  really  mean  is,  that  the  agent  is  free.  That 
is  the  only  point  to  which  any  interest  is  attached.  The  man  is 
the  responsible  subject.  If  he  be  free  so  as  to  be  justly  account- 
able for  his  character  and  conduct,  it  matters  not  what  are  the  laws 
which  determine  the  operations  of  his  reason,  conscience,  or  will ; 
or  whether  liberty  can  be  predicated  of  either  of  those  faculties 
separately  considered.  We  maintain  that  the  man  is  free  ;  but  we 
deny  that  the  will  is  free  in  the  sense  of  being  independent  of  rea- 
son, conscience,  and  feeling.  In  other  words,  a  man  cannot  be 
independent  of  himself,  or  any  one  of  his  faculties  independent  of 
all  the  rest. 

Liberty  and  Ability. 

Fifthly,  Another  fruitful  source  of  confusion  on  this  subject,  is 
confounding  liberty  with  ability.  The  usage  which  attaches  the 
same  meaning  to  these  terms  is  very  ancient.  Augustine  denied 
free  will  to  man  since  the  fall.  Pelagius  affirmed  freedom  of  will 
to  be  essential  to  our  nature.  The  former  intended  simply  to  deny 
to  fallen  man  the  power  to  turn  himself  unto  God.  The  latter 
defined  liberty  to  be  the  ability  at  any  moment  to  determine  him- 
self either  for  good  or  evil.  The  controversy  between  Luther  and 
Erasmus  was  really  about  ability,  nominally  it  was  about  free-will. 
Luther's  book  is  entitled  "  De  Servo  Arbitrio,"  that  of  Erasmus, 
"  De  Libero  Arbitrio."  Tins  usage  pervades  all  the  symbols  of  the 
Reformation,  and  was  followed  by  the  theologians  of  the  sixteenth 
century.  They  all  ascribe  free  agency  to  man  in  the  true  sense 
of  the  words,  but  deny  to  him  freedom  of  will.  To  a  great  extent 
this  confusion  is  still  kept  up.  Many  of  the  prevalent  definitions 
of  liberty  are  definitions  of  ability  ;  and  much  that  is  commonly 


292  PART  n.   Ch.  IX. —  free  agency. 

advanced  to  prove  the  liberty  of  the  will,  is  really  intended,  and  is 
of  force  only  as  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  ability'.  Jacobi  de- 
fines liberty  to  be  the  power  to  decide  in  favour  of  the  dictates  of 
reason  in  opposition  to  the  solicitations  of  sense.  Bretschneider 
says  it  is  the  power  to  decide  according  to  reason.  Augustine,  and 
after  him  most  Augustinians  distinguished,  (1.)  The  liberty  of 
man  before  the  fall,  whicli  was  an  ability  either  to  sin  or  not  to  sin. 
(2.)  The  state  of  man  since  the  fall,  when  he  has  liberty  to  sin, 
but  not  to  good.  (3.)  The  state  of  man  in  heaven  when  he  has 
liberty  to  good,  but  not  to  evil.  This  last  is  the  highest  form  of 
liberty,  a,felix  necessitas  honi.  This  is  the  liberty  which  belongs 
to  God.  In  the  popular  mind  perhaps  the  common  idea  of  liberty 
is,  the  power  to  decide  for  good  or  evil,  sin  or  holiness.  This  idea 
pervades  more  or  less  all  the  disquisitions  in  favour  of  the  liberty 
of  indifference,  or  of  power  to  the  contrary.  The  essence  of  liberty 
in  a  moral  accountable  being,  according  to  Reid,  is  the  power  to  do 
what  he  is  accountable  for.  So  Cousin,  Jouffroy,  Tappan,  and  this 
whole  class  of  writers,  make  liberty  and  ability  synonymous.  The 
last-mentioned  author,  when  speaking  of  the  distinction  between 
natural  and  moral  inability,  says,  "  when  we  have  denied  liberty  in 
denying  a  self-determining  power,  these  definitions,  in  order  to 
make  out  a  quasi  liberty  and  ability,  are  nothing  but  ingenious  folly 
and  plausible  deception."  ^  Here  liberty  and  ability  are  avowedly 
used  as  convertible  terms. 

Other  writers  who  do  not  ignore  the  distinction  between  liberty 
and  ability,  yet  distinguish  them  only  as  different  forms  of  liberty. 
This  is  the  case  with  many  of  the  German  authors.  As  for  ex- 
ample with  Miiller,  who  distinguishes  the  Formale  Freiheit,  or 
ability,  from  the  Reale  Freiheit,  or  liberty  as  it  actually  exists. 
The  former  is  only  necessary  as  the  condition  of  the  latter.  That 
is,  he  admits,  that  if  a  man's  acts  are  certainly  determined  by  his 
character,  he  is  really  free.  But  in  order  to  render  him  justly 
responsible  for  his  character,  it  jnust  be  self-acquired.^  This  is 
confounding  things  which  are  not  only  distinct,  but  which  are 
admitted  to  be  distinct.  It  is  admitted  by  this  class  of  writers,  and, 
indeed,  by  the  whole  Christian  world,  that  men  since  the  fall  have 
not  power  to  make  themselves  holy  ;  much  less  to  effect  this  trans- 
formation by  a  volition.     It  is  admitted  that  saints   in  glory  are 

1  Review  of  Edwards,  edit.  New  York,  1839,  pp.  164,  165. 

2  "  Frei  ist  ein  AVesen  inwiefern  die  innere  Mitte  seines  Lebens  aus  der  heraus  es  wirkt 
und  thiitig  ist,  durch  Selbstbestimmung  bedingt  ist."  Lehre  von  der  Siinde,  vol.  ii.  p.  72.  He 
elsewliere  defines  liberty  to  be  the  power  of  self-development.  "  Freiheit  ist  Macht  aus  sich 
zu  werden,"  p.  62. 


§2.]  DEFINITION    OF   TERMS.  293 

infallibly  determined  by  their  character  to  holiness,  yet  fallen  men 
and  saints  are  admitted  to  be  free.  Ability  may  be  lost,  yet  lib- 
erty remain.  The  former  is  lost  since  the  fall.  Restored  b}^  grace, 
as  they  say,  it  is  to  be  again  lost  in  that  liberty  to  good  which  is 
identical  with  necessity.  If  liberty  and  ability  ai'e  thns  distinct, 
why  should  they  be  confounded  ?  We  are  conscious  of  liberty. 
We  know  ourselves  to  be  free  in  all  our  volitions.  They  reveal 
tliemselves  to  our  inmost  consciousness  as  acts  of  self-determina- 
tion. We  cannot  disown  them,  or  escape  responsibihty  on  account 
of  them,  even  if  we  try  ;  and  yet  no  man  is  conscious  of  ability  to 
change  his  own  heart.  Free  agency  belongs  to  God,  to  angels,  to 
saints  in  glory,  to  fallen  men,  and  to  Satan  ;  and  it  is  the  same  in 
all.  Yet  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  words,  God  cannot  do  evil  ; 
neither  can  Satan  recover,  by  a  volition,  his  lost  inheritance  of 
holiness.  It  is  a  great  evil  thus  to  confound  things  essentially 
distinct.  It  produces  endless  confusion.  Augustine  says,  man  is 
not  free  since  the  fall,  because  he  cannot  but  sin  ;  saints  are  free 
because  they  cannot  sin.  Inability  in  the  one  case  destroys  free- 
dom ;  inability  in  the  other  is  the  perfection  of  freedom!  Necessity 
is  the  very  opposite  of  liberty,  and  yet  they  are  said  to  be  identical. 
One  man  in  asserting  the  freedom  of  the  will,  means  to  assert  free 
agency,  while  he  denies  ability  ;  another  means  by  it  full  ability. 
It  is  certainly  important  that  the  same  words  should  not  be  used  to 
express  antagonistic  ideas. 

Confusion  of  thought  and  language,  however,  is  not  the  principal 
evil  which  arises  from  making  liberty  and  ability  identical.  It 
necessarily  brings  us  into  conflict  with  the  truth,  and  with  the 
moral  judgments  of  men.  There  are  three  truths  of  which 
every  man  is  convinced  from  the  very  constitution  of  his  nature. 
(1.)  That  he  is  a  free  agent.  (2.)  That  none  but  free  agents 
can  be  accountable  for  their  character  or  conduct.  (3.)  That  he 
does  not  possess  ability  to  change  his  moral  state  by  an  act  of  the 
will.  Now,  if  in  order  to  express  the  fact  of  his  inability,  we  say, 
that  he  is  not  a  free  agent,  we  contradict  his  consciousness  ;  or,  if 
he  believe  what  we  say,  we  destroy  his  sense  of  responsibility.  Or 
if  we  tell  him  that  because  he  is  a  free  agent,  he  has  power  to  change 
his  heart  at  will,  we  again  bring  ourselves  into  conflict  with  his 
convictions.  He  knows  he  is  a  free  agent,  and  yet  he  knows  that 
he  has  not  the  power  to  make  himself  hoi}'.  Free  agency  is  the 
power  to  decide  according  to  our  character;  ability  is  the  power  to 
change  our  character  by  a  volition.  The  former,  the  Bible  and  con- 
sciousness affirm  belongs  to  man  in  every  condition  of  his  being ; 


294  PART  II.     Ch.   IX.  — free   agency. 

the  latter,  the  Bible  and  consciousness  teach  with  equal  expHcitness 
does  not  belong  to  fallen  man.  The  two  things,  therefore,  ought 
not  to  be  confounded. 

Self-determination  and  Self- determination  of  the  Will. 

Sixthly,  Another  source  of  confusion  is  not  discriminating  be- 
tween self-determination  and  self-determination  of  the  will.  Those 
who  use  the  latter  expression,  say  they  intend  to  deny  that  the 
Avill  is  determined  by  the  antecedent  state  of  the  mind,  and  to 
affirm  that  it  has  a  self-determining  power,  independent  of  any- 
thing preexisting  or  coexisting.  They  say  that  those  who  teach 
that  when  the  state  of  the  mind  is  the  same,  the  volition  will 
inevitably  be  the  same,  teach  necessity  and  fatalism,  and  reduce 
the  will  to  a  machine.  "  I  know,"  says  Reid,  "  nothing  more  that 
can  be  desired  to  establish  fatalism  throughout  the  universe. 
When  it  is  proved  that,  through  all  nature,  the  same  consequences 
invariably  result  from  the  same  circumstances,  the  doctrine  of  lib- 
erty must  be  given  up."^  The  opposite  doctrine  is,  that  the  will 
is  "self-moved  ;  it  makes  its  nisus  of  itself,  and  of  itself  it  forbears 
to  make  it,  and  within  the  sphere  of  its  activity,  and  in  relation  to 
its  objects,  it  has  the  power  of  selecting,  by  a  mere  arbitrary  act, 
any  particular  object.  It  is  a  cause  all  whose  acts,  as  well  as  any 
particular  act,  considered  as  phenomena  demanding  a  cause,  are 
accounted  for  in  itself  alone. "^  Thus,  if  it  be  asked  why  the  will 
decides  one  way  rather  than  another,  the  reason  is  to  be  sought  in 
its  self-determining  power.  It  can  by  an  arbitrary  act,  choose  or 
not  choose,  choose  one  way  or  another,  without  a  motive  or  with  a 
motive,  for  or  against  any  or  all  influences  brought  to  bear  upon  it. 
But  when  these  writers  come  to  prove  their  case,  it  turns  out  that 
this  is  not  at  all  what  they  mean.  It  is  not  the  self-determining 
power  of  the  will,  but  the  self-determining  power  of  the  agent 
that  they  are  contending  for.  Reid  says  that  all  that  is  involved 
in  free  agency  is  that  man  is  an  agent,  the  author  of  his  own  acts, 
or  that  we  are  "  efficient  causes  in  our  deliberate  and  voluntary 
actions."^  "To  say  that  man  is  a  fi'ee  agent,  is  no  more  than  to 
say  that,  in  some  instances,  he  is  truly  an  agent  and  a  cause,  and 

1  It  may  be  well  to  remark,  in  passing,  how  uniformly  writers  of  the  school  to  which 
Reid  belongs,  identify  certainty  and  necessity,  so  long  as  they  argue  against  an  opponent. 
In  the  pas-age  above  quoted,  it  is  not  that  the  will  is  determined  by  necessity,  or  by  a 
cause  out  of  the  mind,  but  simply  that  the  same  decisions  "  invariably  "  occur  in  the  same 
circumstances,  that  is  declared  to  be  fatalism. 

-  Tappan's  Review  of  Edwards^  edit.  New  York,  1839,  p.  223. 

3  Active  Powers,  Essay  iv.  ch.  2;    Works,  Edinburgh,  18-19,  p.  603. 


§3.]  CERTAINTY   CONSISTENT  WITH  LIBERTY.  295 

is  not  merely  acted  upon  as  a  passive  instrument."^  Dr.  Samuel 
Clarke,  in  his  controversy  with  Leibnitz,  says,  "  the  power  of  self- 
motion  or  action,  which,  in  all  animate  agents,  is  spontaneity,  is, 
in  moral  or  rational  agents,  what  we  properly  call  liberty."  Again, 
he  says,  "  the  true  definition  of  liberty  is  the  power  to  act."  Now, 
as  all  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  moral  certainty  admit  self- 
determination  of  the  agent,  and  deny  the  self-determining  power 
of  the  will,  the  greatest  confusion  must  follow  from  confounding 
these  two  things ;  and,  besides  this,  undue  advantage  is  thereby 
secured  for  the  doctrine  of  the  self-determining  power  of  the  will, 
by  arguments  which  prove  only  self-determination,  which  every 
man  admits.  On  the  other  hand  unfair  prejudice  is  created  against 
the  truth  by  representing  it  as  denying  the  power  of  self-determi- 
nation, when  it  only  denies  the  self-determining  power  of  the  will. 
Thus  President  Edwards  is  constantly  represented  as  denying  that 
volitions  are  self-determinations,  or  that  the  mind  is  the  efficient 
cause  of  its  own  acts,  or  that  man  is  an  agent,  because  he  wrote 
against  the  self-determining  power  of  the  will  as  taught  by  Clarke 
and  Whitby.  These  two  things  ought  not  to  be  confounded,  be- 
cause they  are  really  distinct.  When  we  say  that  an  agent  is  self- 
determined,  we  say  two  things.  (1.)  That  he  is  the  author  or 
efficient  cause  of  his  own  act.  (2.)  That  the  grounds  or  reasons 
of  his  determination  are  within  himself.  He  is  determined  by 
what  constitutes  him  at  the  moment  a  particular  individual,  his 
feelings,  principles,  character,  dispositions  ;  and  not  by  any  ah  extra 
or  coercive  influence.  But  when  we  say  that  the  will  is  self-deter- 
mined, we  separate  it  from  the  other  constituents  of  the  man,  as  an 
independent  power,  and  on  the  one  hand,  deny  that  it  is  determined 
by  anything  in  the  man  ;  and  on  the  other,  affirm  that  it  deter- 
mines itself  by  an  inherent  self-moving,  arbitrary  power.  In  this 
ease  the  volition  ceases  to  be  a  decision  of  the  agent,  for  it  may  be 
contrary  to  that  agent's  whole  character,  principles,  inclinations, 
feelings,  convictions,  or  whatever  else  makes  him  what  he  is. 

§  3.   Certainty  Consistent  with  Liberty. 

Although  the  doctrine  of  necessity  subverts  the  foundation  of  all 
morality  and  religion,  our  present  concern  is  with  the  doctrine  of 
contingency.  We  wish  simply  to  state  the  case  as  between  cer- 
tainty and  uncertainty.  The  doctrine  of  necessity,  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word,  is  antichristian  ;  but  the  Christian  world  is,  and 
ever  has  been  divided  between  the  advocates  and  opponents  of  the 

^  Active  Powers,  Essay  iv.  ch.  3 ;  Works,  p.  607. 


296  PART  n.   Ch.  IX.  — free  agency. 

doctrine  of  contingency.  All  Augustinians  maintain  that  a  free 
act  may  be  inevitably  certain  as  to  its  occurrence.  All  Anti- 
Augustinians,  whether  Pelagians,  Semi-Pelagians,  or  Arminians, 
and  most  moral  philosophers  and  metaphysicians,  take  the  opposite 
ground.  They  teach  that  as  the  will  has  a  self- determining  power 
it  may  decide  against  all  motives  internal  or  external,  against  all 
influences  divine  or  human,  so  that  its  decisions  cannot  be  rendered 
inevitable  without  destroying  their  liberty.  The  very  essence  of 
liberty,  they  say,  is  power  to  the  contrary.  In  other  words,  a  free 
act  is  one  performed  with  the  consciousness  that  under  precisely 
the  same  circumstances,  that  is,  in  the  same  internal  as  well  as  ex- 
ternal state  of  the  mind,  it  might  have  been  the  opposite.  Accord- 
ing to  the  one  doctrine,  the  will  is  determined  ;  according  to  the 
other,  it  determines  itself.  In  the  one  case,  our  acts  are  or  may 
be  inevitably  certain  and  yet  be  free.  In  the  other,  in  order  to  be 
free,  they  must  be  uncertain.  We  have  already  proved  that  this 
is  a  fair  statement  of  the  case  ;  that  the  advocates  of  moral  neces- 
sity mean  thereb}'  certainty ;  and  that  the  advocates  of  contingency 
mean  thereby  uncertainty.  We  have  admitted  that  the  use  of  the 
word  necessity,  even  when  qualified  by  saying  negatively,  that  it 
is  not  "  absolute,  physical,  or  mechanical,"  and  that  it  is  merely 
philosophical  or  moral,  is  unfortunate  and  inappropriate.  And  if 
any  opponent  of  Augustine  or  Edwards  say  that  all  he  denies  is  an 
absolute  or  physical  necessity,  and  that  he  has  no  objection  to  the 
doctrine  of  certaint}^,  then  the  difference  between  him  and  Edwards 
is  merely  verbal.  But  the  real  controversy  lies  deeper.  It  is  not 
the  word,  but  the  thing  that  is  opposed.  There  is  a  real  difference 
as  to  the  nature  of  fi'ee  agency ;  and  that  difference  concerns  this 
very  point :  may  the  acts  of  free  agents  be  rendered  inevitably 
certain  without  destroying  their  liberty  ? 

Points  of  Agreement/ 
It  may  be  well  before  proceeding  further,  to  state  the  points  as 
to  which  the  parties  to  this  controversy  are  agreed. 

1.  They  are  agreed  that  man  is  a  free  agent,  in  such  a  sense  as 
to  be  responsible  for  his  character  and  acts.  The  dispute  is  not 
about  the  fact,  but  the  nature  of  free  agency.  If  any  one  denies 
that  men  are  responsible  moral  agents,  then  he  belongs  to  the 
school  of  necessity,  and  is  not  a  party  to  the  discussion  now  under 
consideration. 

2.  It  is  agreed  as  to  the  nature  of  free  agency  that  it  supposes 
both  reason  and  active  power.     Mere  spontaneity  does  not  consti- 


§3.]  CERTAINTY  CONSISTENT  WITH  LIBERTY.  297 

tute  free  agency,  because  that  is  found  in  brutes,  in  idiots,  and  in 
maniacs.  There  is  no  dispute  as  to  what  is  meant  by  reason  as  one 
of  the  elements  of  free  agency  ;  and  so  far  as  active  power,  which 
is  its  second  element,  is  concerned,  it  is  agreed  that  it  means  or  in- 
cludes efficiency.  In  other  words,  it  is  agreed  that  a  free  agent  is 
the  efficient  cause  of  his  own  acts. 

3.  It  is  admitted,  on  both  sides,  that  in  all  important  cases,  men 
act  under  the  influence  of  motives.  Reid,  indeed,  endeavours  to 
show  that  in  many  cases  the  will  decides  without  any  motive. 
When  there  is  no  ground  of  preference,  he  says  this  must  be  the 
case  ;  as  when  a  man  decides  which  of  fifty  shillings  he  shall  give 
away.  He  admits,  however,  that  these  arbitrary  decisions  relate 
only  to  trifles.  Others  of  the  same  school  acknowledge  that  no 
rational  volition  is  ever  arrived  at  except  under  the  influence  of 
motives. 

4.  It  is  further  agreed  that  the  will  is  not  determined  with  cer- 
tainty by  external  motives.  All  Augustinians  deny  that  the  inter- 
nal state  of  the  mind  which  determines  the  will,  is  itself  necessarily 
or  certainly  determined  by  anything  external  to  the  mind  itself. 

5.  It  may  be  assumed,  also,  that  the  parties  are  agreed  that  the 
word  will  is  to  be  taken  in  its  proper,  restricted  sense.  The  ques- 
tion is  not,  whether  men  have  power  over  their  affections,  their 
likes  and  dislikes.  No  one  carries  the  power  of  the  will  so  far 
as  to  maintain  that  we  can,  by  a  volition,  change  our  feelings. 
The  question  concerns  our  volitions  alone.  It  is  the  ground  or 
reason  of  acts  of  self-determination  that  is  in  dispute.  And,  thei'e- 
fore,  it  is  the  will  considered  as  the  faculty  of  self-determination, 
and  not  as  the  seat  of  the  affections,  that  comes  into  view.  The 
question,  why  one  man  is  led  to  love  God,  or  Christ,  or  his  fellow 
men,  or  truth  and  goodness  ;  and  another  to  love  the  world,  or  sin, 
is  very  different  from  the  question,  what  determines  him  to  do  this 
or  that  particular  act.  The  will  is  that  faculty  by  which  we  deter- 
mine to  do  something  which  we  conceive  to  be  in  our  power.  The 
question,  whether  a  man  has  power  to  change  his  own  character  at 
any  moment,  to  give  himself,  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  a  new 
heart,  concerns  the  extent  of  his  power.  That  is,  it  is  a  question 
concerning  the  ability  or  inability  of  the  sinnor  ;  and  it  is  a  most 
important  question  :  but  it  should  not  be  confounded  with  the  ques- 
tion of  free  agency,  which  is  the  one  now  under  consideration. 

The  wiiole  question  therefore  is,  whether,  when  a  man  decides 
to  do  a  certain  thing,  his  will  is  determined  by  the  previous  state  of 
his  mind.     Or,  vvhether,  with  precisely  the  same  views  and  feel- 


298  PART  11.     Ch.   IX.  — free   agency. 

ings,  his  decision  may  be  one  way  at  one  time,  and  another  at  an- 
other. That  is,  whether  the  will,  or  rather  the  agent,  in  order  to 
be  free,  must  be  undetermined. 

Argument  that  Certainty  suits  all  Free  Agents. 

It  is  certainly  a  strong  argument  in  favour  of  that  view  of  free 
agency,  which  makes  it  consistent  with  certainty,  or  which  supposes 
that  an  agent  may  be  determined  with  inevitable  certainty  as  to  his 
acts,  and  yet  those  acts  remain  free,  that  it  suits  all  classes  or  con- 
ditions of  free  agents.  To  deny  free  agency  to  God,  would  be  to 
deny  Him  personality,  and  to  reduce  Him  to  a  mere  power  or  prin- 
ciple. And  yet,  in  all  the  universe,  is  there  anything  so  certain  as 
that  God  will  do  right  ?  But  if  it  be  said  that  the  conditions  of  ex- 
istence in  an  infinite  being  are  so  different  from  what  they  are  in 
creatures,  that  it  is  not  fair  to  argue  from  the  one  to  the  other,  we 
may  refer  to  the  case  of  our  blessed  Lord.  He  had  a  true  body 
and  a  reasonable  soul.  He  had  a  human  will;  a  mind  regulated  by 
the  same  laws  as  those  which  determine  the  intellectual  and  volun- 
taiy  acts  of  ordinary  men.  In  his  case,  however,  although  there 
may  have  been  the  metaphysical  possibility  of  evil  (though  even 
that  is  a  painful  hypothesis),  still  it  was  more  certain  that  He  would 
be  without  sin  than  that  the  sun  or  moon  should  endure.  No  con- 
ceivable physical  law  could  be  more  certain  in  the  production  of  its 
effects  than  his  will  in  always  deciding  for  the  right.  But  if  it  be 
objected  even  to  this  case,  that  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human 
natures  in  the  person  of  our  Lord  places  Him  in  a  different  category 
from  ourselves,  and  renders  it  unfair  to  assume  that  what  was  true 
in  his  case  must  be  true  in  ours ;  without  admitting  the  force  of  the 
objection,  we  may  refer  to  the  condition  of  the  saints  in  heaven. 
They,  beyond  doubt,  continue  to  be  free  agents  ;  and  yet  their  acts 
are,  and  to  everlasting  will  be,  determined  with  absolute  and 
inevitable  certainty  to  good.  Certainty,  therefore,  must  be  consist- 
ent with  free  agency.  What  can  any  Christian  say  to  this  ?  Does 
he  deny  that  the  saints  in  glory  are  free,  or  does  he  deny  the 
absolute  certainty  of  their  perseverance  in  holiness?  Would  his 
conception  of  the  blessedness  of  heaven  be  thereby  exalted  ?  Or 
would  it  raise  his  ideas  of  the  dignity  of  the  redeemed  to  believe  it 
to  be  uncertain  whether  they  will  be  sinful  or  holy?  We  may, 
however,  come  down  to  our  present  state  of  existence.  Without 
assuming  anything  as  to  the  corruption  of  our  nature,  or  taking  for 
granted  anything  which  Pelagius  would  deny,  it  is  a  certain  fact 
that  all  men  sin.    There  has  never  existed  a  mere  man  on  the  face 


§  3.]  CERTAINTY   CONSISTENT   WITH  LIBERTY.  299 

of  the  earth  who  did  not  sin.  When  we  look  on  a  new-born  infant 
we  know  that  whatever  may  be  nncertain  in  its  future,  it  is  abso- 
lutely, inevitably  certain  that,  should  it  live,  it  will  sin.  In  every 
aspect,  therefore,  in  which  we  can  contemplate  free  agency,  whether 
in  God,  in  tiie  human  nature  of  Christ,  in  the  redeemed  in  heaven, 
or  in  man  here  on  earth,  we  find  that  it  is  compatible  with  absolute 
certainty. 

Arguments  from  Scripture. 

A  second  argument  on  this  subject  is  derived  from  those  doctrines 
of  Scripture  which  necessarily  suppose  that  free  acts  may  be  certain 
as  to  their  occurrence. 

1.  Tiie  first  and  most  obvious  of  these  doctrines  is  the  fore- 
knowledge of  God.  Whatever  metaphysical  explanation  may 
be  given  of  this  divine  attribute  ;  however  we  may  ignore  the 
distinction  between  knowledge  and  foreknowledge,  or  however 
we  may  contend  that  because  God  inhabits  eternity,  and  is  in  no 
wise  subject  to  the  limitations  of  time,  and  that  to  Him  nothing 
is  successive,  still  the  fact  remains  that  we  exist  in  time,  and  tliat 
to  us  there  is  a  future  as  well  as  a  present.  It  remains,  there- 
fore, a  fact  that  human  acts  are  known  before  they  occur  in  time, 
and  consequently  are  foreknown.  But  if  foreknown  as  future, 
they  must  be  certain  ;  not  because  foreknowledge  renders  their 
occurrence  certain,  but  because  it  supposes  it  to  be  so.  It  is  a 
contradiction  in  terms  to  say  that  an  uncertain  event  can  be  fore- 
known as  certain.  To  deny  foreknowledge  to  God,  to  say  that  free 
acts,  because  necessarily  uncertain  as  to  their  occurrence,  are  not 
the  objects  of  foreknowledge  any  more  than  sounds  are  the  objects 
of  sight,  or  mathematical  truths  of  the  affections,  is  to  destroy  the 
very  idea  of  God.  The  future  must  be  as  dark  to  Him  as  to  us ; 
and  He  must  every  moment  be  receiving  vast  accessions  of 
knowledge.  He  cannot  be  an  eternal  being,  pervading  all  dura- 
tion with  a  simultaneous  existence,  much  less  an  omniscient  Being, 
to  whom  tliere  is  nothing  new.  It  is  impossible,  therefore,  to  believe 
in  God  as  He  is  revealed  in  the  Bible,  unless  we  believe  that  all 
things  are  known  unto  Him  from  the  beginning.  But  if  all  things 
are  known,  all  things,  whether  fortuitous  or  free,  are  certain  ;  con- 
sequently certainty  must  be  consistent  with  freedom.  We  are  not 
more  assured  of  our  existence  than  we  are  of  our  free  agency.  To 
say  that  this  is  a  delusion  is  to  deny  the  veracity  of  consciousness, 
which  of  necessity  not  only  involves  a  denial  of  the  veracity  of 
God,  but  also  subverts  the  foundation  of  all  knowledge,  and  plunges 
us  into  absolute  scepticism.      We  may  just  as  well  say  that  our  ex- 


300  PART  11.     Ch.  IX.  — free  agency. 

istence  is  a  delusion  as  that  any  other  fact  of  consciousness  is  delu- 
sive. We  have  no  more  and  no  higher  evidence  for  one  such  fact 
than  for  another.  Men  may  speculate  as  they  please,  they  must 
believe  and  act  according  to  the  laws  impressed  on  our  nature  by 
our  Creator.  We  must  believe,  therefore,  in  our  existence  and  in 
our  free  agency ;  and  as  by  a  necessity  scarcely  less  imperative  we 
must  believe  that  all  things  are  known  to  God  from  eternity,  and 
that  if  foreknown  tlieir  occurrence  is  certain,  we  cannot  denv  that 
certainty  is  consistent  with  free  agency  without  involving  ourselves 
in  palpable  contradictions.  This  argument  is  so  conclusive  that 
most  theistical  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  contingency,  when  they 
come  to  deal  with  it,  give  the  matter  up,  and  acknowledge  that  an 
act  may  be  certain  as  to  its  occurrence  and  yet  free.  They  content 
themselves  for  the  time  being  with  denying  that  it  is  necessary, 
although  it  may  be  certain.  But  they  forget  that  by  "  moral 
necessity"  nothing  more  than  certainty  is  intended,  and  that 
certainty  is  precisely  the  thing  which,  on  other  occasions,  they 
affirm  to  be  contrary  to  liberty.  If  from  all  eternity  it  is  fixed  how 
every  man  will  act ;  if  the  same  consequences  follow  invariably 
from  the  same  antecedents  ;  if  the  acts  of  men  are  inevitable,  this 
is  declared  to  be  fatalism.  If,  however,  it  be  indeed  true  that  the 
advocates  of  indifference,  self-determining  power  of  the  will,  power 
of  contrary  choice,  or  by  whatever  other  name  the  theory  of  con- 
tingency may  be  called,  really  do  not  intend  to  oppose  the  doctrine 
of  certainty,  but  are  simply  combating  fatalism  or  physical  necessity, 
then  the  controversy  is  ended.  What  more  could  Leibnitz  or 
Edwards  ask  than  Reid  concedes  in  the  following  passage :  "  It 
must  be  granted,  that,  as  whatever  was,  certainly  was,  and  what- 
ever is,  certainly  is,  so  whatever  shall  be,  certainly  shall  be.  These 
are  identical  propositions,  and  cannot  be  doul)ted  by  those  who  con- 
ceive them  distinctly.  But  I  know  no  rule  of  reasoning  by  which  it 
can  be  inferred  that  because  an  event  certainly  shall  he,  therefore 
its  production  Tnust  he  necessary.  The  manner  of  its  production, 
whether  free  or  necessary,  cannot  be  concluded  from  the  time  of 
its  production,  whether  it  be  past,  present,  or  future.  Tiiat  it  shall 
be,  no  more  implies  that  it  shall  be  necessarily  than  that  it  shall  be 
freely  produced ;  for  neither  present,  past,  iior  future,  have  any 
more  connection  with  necessity  than  they  have  with  freedom.  '  I 
grant,  therefore,  that  from  events  being  foreseen,  it  may  be  justly 
concluded,  that,  they  are  certainly  future  ;  but  from  their  being 
certainly  future  it  does  not  follow  that  they  are  necessary'."  ^     As 

1  Active  Powers,  Essay  iv.  cli.  10;  Works,  edit.  Edinburgh,  1849,  p.  629. 


§3.]  CERTAINTY   CONSISTENT  WITH  LIBERTY.  301 

all  things  are  foreseen  all  things  are  inevitably  certain  as  to  their 
occurrence.     This  is  granting  all  any  Augustinian  need  demand. 

2.  Another  doctrine  held  by  a  large  part  of  the  Chi'istian  world 
in  all  ages  which  of  necessity  precludes  the  doctrine  of  contingency, 
is  that  of  the  foreordination  of  future  events.  Those  who  believe 
that  God  foreordains  whatever  comes  to  pass  must  believe  that  the 
occurrence  of  all  events  is  determined  with  unalterable  certainty. 
It  is  not  our  object  to  prove  any  of  these  doctrines,  but  simply  to 
argue  from  them  as  true.  It  may,  however,  be  remarked  that  there 
is  no  difficulty  attending  the  docti'ine  of  foreordination  which  does 
not  attach  to  that  of  foreknowledge.  The  latter  supposes  the 
certainty  of  free  acts,  and  the  former  secures  their  certainty.  If 
their  being  certain  be  consistent  with  liberty,  their  being  rendered 
certain  cannot  be  incompatible  with  it.  All  that  foreordination 
does  is  to  render  it  certain  that  free  acts  shall  occur.  The  whole 
difficulty  is  in  their  being  certain,  and  that  must  be  admitted  by 
every  consistent  theist.  The  point  now  in  hand  is,  that  those  who 
believe  that  the  Bible  teaches  the  doctrine  of  foreordination  are 
shut  up  to  the  conclusion  that  an  event  may  be  free  and  yet  certain, 
and  therefore  that  the  theory  of  contingency  which  supposes  that 
an  act  to  be  free  must  be  uncertain,  is  unscriptural  and  false. 

3.  The  doctrine  of  divine  providence  involves  the  same  conclusion. 
That  doctrine  teaches  that  God  governs  all  his  creatures  and  all  their 
actions.  That  is,  that  He  so  conducts  the  administration  of  his 
government  as  to  accomplish  all  his  purposes.  Here  again  the  diffi- 
culty is  the  same,  and  is  no  greater  than  before.  Foreknowledge 
supposes  certainty;  foreordination  determines  it;  and  providence 
effects  it.  The  last  does  no  more  than  the  first  of  necessity  pre- 
supposes. If  certainty  be  compatible  Avith  freedom,  providence 
which  only  secures  certainty  cannot  be  inconsistent  with  it.  Who 
for  any  metaphysical  difficulty  —  who,  because  he  is  not  able  to 
comprehend  how  God  can  effectually  govern  free  agents  without 
destroying  their  nature,  would  give  up  the  doctrine  of  providence  ? 
Who  would  wish  to  see  the  reins  of  universal  empire  fall  from  the 
hands  of  infinite  wisdom  and  love,  to  be  seized  by  chance  or  fate  ? 
Who  would  not  rather  be  governed  by  a  Father  than  by  a  tornado  ? 
If  God  cannot  effectually  control  the  acts  of  free  agents  there  can 
be  no  prophecy,  no  prayer,  no  thanksgiving,  no  promises,  no 
security  of  salvation,  no  certainty  whether  in  the  end  God  or  Satan 
is  to  be  triumphant,  whether  heaven  or  hell  is  to  be  the  consum- 
mation. Give  us  certainty —  the  secure  conviction  that  a  sparrow 
cannot  fall,  or  a  sinner  move  a  finger,  but  as  God  permits  and 


302  PART  II.     Ch.  IX.— free  agency. 

ordains.  We  must  have  either  God  or  Satan  to  rule.  And  if  God 
has  a  providence  He  must  be  able  to  render  the  free  acts  of  his 
creatures  certain  ;  and  therefore  certainty  must  be  consistent  with 
liberty.  Was  it  not  certain  that  Christ  should,  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  be  by  wicked  hands  crucified  and  slain,  and  yet  were 
not  his  murderers  free  in  all  they  did?  Let  it  be  remembered 
that  in  all  these  doctrines  of  providence,  foreordination,  and  fore- 
knowledge nothing  is  assumed  beyond  what  Reid,  one  of  the  most 
able  opponents  of  Leibnitz  and  Edwards,  readily  admits.  He  grants 
the  prescience  of  future  events  ;  he  grants  that  prescience  supposes 
cei'tainty,  and  that  is  all  that  either  foreordination  or  providence 
secures.  If  an  act  may  be  free,  although  certainly  foreknown,  it 
may  be  free  although  foreordained  and  secured  by  the  great  scheme 
of  providence. 

4.  The  whole  Christian  world  believes  that  God  can  convert 
men.  They  believe  that  He  can  effectually  lead  them  to  repent- 
ance and  faith ;  and  that  He  can  secure  them  in  heaven  from  ever 
falling  into  sin.  That  is,  they  believe  that  He  can  render  their 
free  acts  absolutely  certain.  When  we  say  that  this  is  the  faith  of 
the  whole  Christian  world  we  do  not  mean  that  no  individual 
Christian  or  Christian  theologian  has  ever  denied  this  doctrine  of 
grace  ;  but  we  do  mean  that  the  doctrine,  to  the  extent  above 
stated,  is  included  in  the  Confessions  of  all  the  great  historical 
churches  of  Christendom  in  all  ages.  It  is  just  as  much  a  part  of 
the  established  faith  of  Christians  as  the  divinity  of  our  Redeemer. 
This  being  the  fact,  the  doctrine  that  contingency  is  necessary  to 
liberty  cannot  be  reconciled  with  Christian  doctrine.  It  has, 
indeed,  been  extensively  held  by  Christians;  but  our  object  is  to 
show  that  it  is  in  conflict  with  doctrines  which  they  themselves  as 
Christians  must  admit.  If  God  can  fulfil  his  promise  to  give  men 
a  new  heart;  if  He  can  translate  them  from  the  kingdom  of  dark- 
ness into  the  kingdom  of  his  dear  Son  ;  if  He  can  give  them 
repentance  unto  life ;  if  there  be  no  impropriety  in  praying  that 
He  would  preserve  them  from  falling,  and  give  them  the  secure 
possession  of  eternal  life,  then  He  can  control  their  free  acts.  He 
can,  by  his  grace,  without  violating  their  freedom,  make  it  abso- 
lutely certain  that  they  will  repent  and  believe,  and  persevere  in 
holiness.  If  these  things  are  so,  then  it  is  evident  that  any  theory 
which  makes  contingency  or  uncertainty  essential  to  libei-ty  must 
be  irreconcilable  with  some  of  the  plainest  and  most  precious  doc- 
trines of  the  Scriptures. 


§3.]  CERTAINTY  CONSISTENT  WITH  LIBERTY.  303 

The  Argument  from  Consciousness. 
A  third  argument  on  this  subject  is  derived  from  consciousness. 
It  is  conceded  that  every  man  is  conscious  of  hberty  in  his  volun- 
tary acts.  It  is  conceded  further  that  this  consciousness  proves  the 
fact  of  free  agency.  The  vahdity  of  this  argument  urged  by  the 
advocates  of  contingency  against  the  doctrine  of  necessity  in  any 
such  form  as  involves  a  denial  of  this  fact  of  consciousness,  we  fully 
admit.  The  doctrine  opposed  by  Reid  and  Stewart,  as  well  as  by 
many  continental  writeis,  was  really  a  doctrine  which  denied  both 
the  liberty  and  responsibility  of  man.  This  is  not  the  Augustinian 
or  Edwardean  doctrine,  although  unhappily  both  are  expressed  by 
the  same  terms.  The  one  is  the  doctrine  of  physical  or  mechanical 
necessity  ;  the  other  that  of  certainty.  As  between  the  advocates 
of  the  latter  theory  and  the  defenders  of  contingency,  it  is  agreed 
that  man  is  a  free  agent ;  it  is  further  agreed  that  it  is  included  in 
the  consciousness  of  free  agency,  that  we  are  efficient  and  respon- 
sible authors  of  our  own  acts,  that  we  had  the  power  to  perform  or 
not  to  perform  any  voluntary  act  of  which  we  were  the  authors. 
But  we  maintain  that  we  are  none  the  less  conscious  that  this  in- 
timate conviction  that  we  had  power  not  to  perform  an  act,  is 
conditional.  That  is,  we  are  conscious  that  the  act  might  have 
been  otherwise  had  other  views  or  feelings  been  present  to  our 
minds,  or  been  allowed  their  clue  weight.  No  man  is  conscious  of 
a  power  to  will  against  his  will ;  that  is,  the  will,  in  the  narrow 
sense  of  the  word,  cannot  be  against  the  will  in  the  wide  sense  of 
the  term.  This  is  only  saying,  that  a  man  cannot  prefer  against 
his  preference  or  choose  against  his  choice.  A  volition  is  a  prefer- 
ence resulting  in  a  decision.  A  man  may  have  one  preference  at 
one  time  and  another  at  another.  He  may  have  various  conflicting 
feelings  or  principles  in  action  at  the  same  time  ;  but  he  cannot 
have  coexisting  opposite  preferences.  What  consciousness  teaches 
on  this  subject  seems  to  be  simply  this  :  that  in  every  voluntary  act 
we  had  some  reason  for  acting  as  we  did  ;  that  in  the  absence  of 
that  reason,  or  in  the  presence  of  others,  which  others  we  may  feel 
oucrht  to  have  been  present,  we  should  or  could  have  acted  differ- 
ently. Under  the  reasons  for  an  act  are  included  all  that  is  meant 
by  the  word  motives^  in  the  subjective  sense  of  the  term  ;  i.  e., 
principles,  inclinations,  feelings,  etc.  We  cannot  conceive  that  a 
man  can  be  conscious  that,  with  his  principles,  feelings,  and  in- 
clinations being  one  way,  his  will  may  be  another  way.  A  man 
filled  with  the  fear  of  God,  or  with  the  love  of  Christ,  cannot  will 


304  PART  n.   Ch.  ix.— free  agency. 

to  blaspheme  his  God  or  Saviour.  That  fear  or  love  constitutes 
for  the  time  being  the  man.  He  is  a  man  existing  in  that  state, 
and  if  his  acts  do  not  express  that  state  they  are  not  his. 

Argument  from  the  Moral  Character  of  Volitions. 

This  suggests  a  fourth  argument  on  this  subject.  Unless  the 
will  be  determined  by  the  previous  state  of  the  mind,  in  opposition 
to  being  self-determined,  there  can  be  no  morality  in  our  acts.  A 
man  is  responsible  for  his  external  acts,  because  they  are  decided 
by  his  will  ;  he  is  responsible  for  his  volitions,  because  they  are 
determined  by  his  principles  and  feelings  ;  he  is  responsible  for  his 
principles  and  feelings,  because  of  their  inherent  nature  as  good  or 
bad,  and  because  they  are  his  own,  and  constitute  his  character. 
If  you  detach  the  outward  act  from  the  will  it  ceases  to  have  any 
moral  character.  If  I  kill  a  man,  unless  the  act  was  intentional, 
i.  e.,  the  result  of  a  volition  to  kill  or  injure,  there  is  no  morality 
in  the  act.  If  I  willed  to  kill,  then  the  character  of  the  act  depends 
on  the  motives  which  determined  the  volition.  If  those  motives 
were  a  regard  to  the  authority  of  God,  or  of  the  demands  of  justice 
legally  expressed,  the  volition  was  right.  If  the  motive  was  malice 
or  cupidity,  the  volition  and  consequent  act  were  wrong.  It  is 
obvious  that  if  the  will  be  self-determined,  independent  of  the 
previous  state  of  the  mind,  it  has  no  more  character  than  the  out- 
ward act  detached  from  the  volition,  — it  does  not  reveal  or  express 
anything  in  the  mind.  If  a  man  when  filled  with  pious  feeling  can 
will  the  most  impious  acts ;  or,  when  filled  with  enmity  to  God, 
have  the  volitions  of  a  saint,  then  his  volitions  and  acts  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  man  himself.  They  do  not  express  his  character, 
and  he  cannot  be  responsible  for  them. 

Argument  from  the  Rational  Nature  of  Man. 

The  doctrine  that  the  will  is  determined  and  not  self-determined, 
is  moreover  involved  in  the  rational  character  of  our  acts.  A 
rational  act  is  not  merely  an  act  performed  by  a  rational  being,  but 
one  performed  for  a  reason,  whether  good  or  bad.  An  act  performed 
without  a  reason,  without  intention  or  object,  for  which  no  reason 
can  be  assigned  beyond  the  mere  power  of  acting,  is  as  irrational 
as  the  actions  of  a  brute  or  of  an  idiot.  If  the  will  therefore  ever 
acts  independently  of  the  understanding  and  of  the  feelings,  its 
volitions  are  not  the  acts  of  a  rational  being  any  further  than  they 
would  be  if  reason  were  entirely  dethroned.  The  only  true  idea 
of  liberty  is  that  of  a  being  acting  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of 


§3.]  CERTAINTY  CONSISTENT  WITH  LIBERTY.  305 

its  nature.  So  long  as  an  animal  is  allowed  to  act  under  the  control 
of  its  own  nature,  determined  in  all  it  does  by  what  is  within  itself, 
it  has  all  the  liberty  of  which  it  is  capable.  And  so  long  as  a  man 
is  determined  in  his  volitions  and  acts  by  his  own  reason  and  feelings 
he  has  all  the  liberty  of  which  he  is  capable.  But  if  you  detach 
the  acts  of  an  animal  from  its  inward  state  its  liberty  is  gone.  It 
becomes  possessed.  And  if  the  acts  of  a  man  are  not  determined 
by  his  reason  and  feelings  he  is  a  puppet  or  a  maniac. 

The  doctrine  that  the  will  acts  independently  of  the  previous  state 
of  the  mind  supposes  that  our  volitions  are  isolated  atoms,  springing 
up  from  the  abyss  of  the  capricious  self-determination  of  the  will, 
from  a  source  beyond  the  control  or  ken  of  reason.  They  are 
purely  casual,  arbitrary,  or  capricious.  They  have  no  connection 
with  the  past,  and  give  no  promise  of  the  future.  On  this  hypothesis 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  character.  It  is,  however,  a  fact  of 
experience  universally  admitted,  that  there  are  such  things  as  prin- 
ciples or  dispositions  which  control  the  will.  We  feel  assured  that 
an  honest  man  will  act  honestly,  and  that  a  benevolent  man  will 
act  benevolently.  We  are  moreover  assured  that  these  principles 
may  be  so  strong  and  fixed  as  to  render  the  volitions  absolutely 
certain.  "Rational  beings,"  says  Reid,  "in  proportion  as  they  are 
wise  and  good,  will  act  according  to  the  best  motives ;  and  every 
rational  being  who  does  otherwise,  abuses  his  liberty.  The  most 
perfect  being,  in  everything  where  there  is  a  right  and  a  wrong,  a 
better  and  a  worse,  always  infallibly  acts  according  to  the  best 
motives.  This,  indeed,  is  little  else  than  an  identical  proposition ; 
for  it  is  a  contradiction  to  say,  that  a  perfect  being  does  what  is 
wrong  or  unreasonable.  But  to  say  that  he  does  not  act  freely, 
because  he  always  does  what  is  best,  is  to  say,  that  the  proper  use 
of  liberty  destroys  liberty,  and  that  liberty  consists  only  in  its 
abuse."  ^  That  is,  the  character  determines  the  act;  and  to  say 
that  the  infallible  certainty  of  acts  destroys  their  freedom  is  to 
make  "  liberty  destroy  liberty."  Though  Reid  and  Stewart  wrote 
against  Leibnitz  and  Edwards  as  well  as  against  Hobbes  and 
Belsham,  the  sentences  above  quoted  contain  the  whole  doctrine 
of  the  two  former  distinguished  men,  and  of  their  innumerable 
predecessors,  associates,  and  followers.  It  is  the  doctrine  that 
infallible  certainty  is  consistent  with  liberty.  This  conviction  is  sb 
wrought  into  the  minds  of  men  that  they  uniformly,  unconsciously 
as  well  as  consciously,  act  upon  it.  They  assume  that  a  man's 
volitions  are  determined  by  motives.     They  take  for  granted  that 

1  Active  Powers,  Essay  iv.  ch.  4 ;  Works,  p.  609. 
VOL.  II.  20 


306  PART  n.   Ch.  IX.— free  agency. 

there  is  such  a  thing  as  character ;  and  therefore  they  endeavour 
to  mould  the  character  of  those  under  their  influence,  assured  that 
if  they  make  the  tree  good  the  fruit  will  be  good.  They  do  not 
act  on  the  principle  that  the  acts  of  men  are  capricious,  that  the 
will  is  self-determined,  acting  without  or  against  motives  as  well  as 
with  them  :  so  that  it  must  always  and  forever  remain  uncertain 
how  it  will  decide. 

Argument  from  the  Doctrine  of  a  Sufficient  Cause. 

The  axiom  that  every  effect  must  have  a  cause,  or  the  doctrine 
of  a  sufficient  reason,  applies  to  the  internal  as  well  as  to  the  exter- 
nal world.  It  governs  the  whole  sphere  of  our  experience,  inward 
and  outward.  Every  volition  is  an  effect,  and  therefore  must  have 
had  a  cause.  There  must  have  been  some  sufficient  reason  why 
it  was  so,  rather  than  otherwise.  That  reason  was  not  the  mere 
power  of  the  agent  to  act ;  for  that  only  accounts  for  his  acting, 
not  for  his  acting  one  way  rather  than  another.  The  force  of 
gravity  accounts  for  a  stone  falling  to  the  earth,  but  not  for  its 
falling  here  instead  of  there.  The  power  to  walk  accounts  for  a 
man's  walking,  but  not  for  his  walking  east  rather  than  west.  Yet 
we  are  told  even  by  the  most  distinguished  writers,  that  the  efficiency 
of  the  agent  is  all  that  is  required  to  satisfy  the  instinctive  demand 
which  we  make  for  a  sufficient  reason,  in  the  case  of  our  volitions. 
Reid,  as  quoted  above,  asks,  "  Was  there  a  cause  of  the  action  ? 
Undoubtedly  there  was.  Of  every  event  there  must  be  a  cause 
that  had  power  sufficient  to  produce  it,  and  that  exerted  that  power 
for  the  purpose.  In  the  present  case,  either  the  man  was  the  cause 
of  the  action,  and  then  it  was  a  free  action,  and  is  justly  imputed 
to  him  ;  or  it  must  have  had  another  cause,  and  cannot  justly  be 
imputed  to  the  man.  In  this  sense,  therefore,  it  is  granted  that 
there  was  a  sufficient  reason  for  the  action  ;  but  the  question  about 
liberty,  is  not  in  the  least  affected  by  this  concession."^  Again,  he 
asks,  "  Why  may  not  an  efficient  cause  be  defined  to  be  a  being 
that  had  power  and  will  to  produce  the  effect  ?  The  production 
of  an  effect  requires  active  power,  and  active  power,  being  a  quality, 
must  be  in  a  being  endowed  with  that  power.  Power  without  will 
produces  no  effect ;  but,  where  these  are  conjoined,  the  effect  must 
be  produced."  2  Sir  William  Hamilton's  annotation  on  the  former 
of  these  passages  is,  "  that  of  a  hyper-physical  as  well  as  of  a 
physical  event,  we  must,  by  a  necessary  mental  law,  always  suppose 

1  Actine  Powers,  Essay  iv.  ch.  9;  Woi-ks,  edit.  Edinburgh,  1849,  p.  625. 

2  Ibid.  p.  627. 


§3.]  CERTAINTY   CONSISTENT  WITH  LIBERTY.  307 

a  sufficient  reason  why  it  is,  and  is  as  it  is."  The  efficiency  of  the 
agent,  therefore,  is  not  a  sufficient  reason  for  the  volition  being  as 
it  is.  It  is  inconceivable  that  an  undetermined  cause  should  act 
one  way  rather  than  another ;  and  if  it  does  act  thus  without  a 
sufficient  reason,  its  action  can  be  neither  rational  nor  moral. 

Another  common  method  of  answering  this  argument  is  to 
assume  that  because  the  advocates  of  certainty  say  that  the  will  is 
determined  by  motives,  and  therefore,  that  the  motives  are  the 
cause  why  the  volition  is  as  it  is,  they  mean  that  the  efficiency  to 
which  the  volition  is  due  is  in  the  motives,  and  not  in  the  agent. 
Thus  Stewart  says,  "  The  question  is  not  concerning  the  influence 
of  motives,  but  concerning  the  nature  of  that  influence.  The  ad- 
vocates for  necessity  [certainty]  represent  it  as  the  influence  of  a 
cause  in  producing  its  effect.  The  advocates  for  liberty  acknowledge 
that  the  motive  is  the  occasion  for  acting,  or  the  reason  for  acting ; 
but  contend  that  it  is  so  far  from  being  the  efficient  cause  of  it,  that 
it  supposes  the  efficiency  to  reside  elsewhere,  namely,  in  the  mind 
of  the  agent." ^  This  representation  has  been  sufficiently  answered 
above.  Motives  are  not  the  efficient  cause  of  the  volition ;  that 
efficiency  resides  in  the  agent;  but  what  we,  "by  a  necessary 
mental  law,"  must  demand,  is  a  sufficient  reason  why  the  agent 
exerts  his  efficiency  in  one  way  rather  than  another.  To  refer  us 
simply  to  his  efficiency,  is  to  leave  the  demand  for  a  sufficient  rea- 
son entirely  unsatisfied  ;  in  other  words,  it  is  to  assume  that  there 
may  be  an  effect  without  a  cause ;  which  is  impossible. 

The  doctrine  of  free  agency,  therefore,  which  underlies  the 
Bible,  which  is  involved  in  the  consciousness  of  every  rational 
being,  and  which  is  assumed  and  acted  on  by  all  men,  is  at  an 
equal  remove,  on  the  one  hand,  from  the  doctrine  of  physical  or 
mechanical  necessity,  which  precludes  the  possibility  of  liberty 
and  responsibility  ;  and,  on  the  other,  from  the  doctrine  of  contin- 
gency, which  assumes  that  an  act  in  order  to  be  free  must  be  un- 
certain ;  or  that  the  will  is  self-determined,  acting  independently 
of  the  reason,  conscience,  inclinations  and  feelings.  It  teaches  that 
a  man  is  a  free  and  responsible  agent,  because  he  is  author  of  his 
own  acts,  and  because  he  is  determined  to  act  by  nothing  out  of 
himself,  but  by  his  own  views,  convictions,  inclinations,  feelings, 
and  dispositions,  so  that  his  acts  are  the  true  products  of  the  man, 
and  really  represent  or  reveal  what  he  is.  The  profoundest  of  mod- 
ern authors  admit  that  this  is  the  true  theory  of  liberty;  but  some 

1  Philosophy  of  the  Moral  Powers,  ii  Appendix  (^  4)  ;  Works,  Hamilton's  edition,  Edin- 
burgh, 1855,  vol.  vi.  p.  370. 


308  PART  n.   Ch.  Vm.  —  FREE  AGENCY. 

of  them,  as  for  example  Muller,  in  his  elaborate  work  on  "  Sin," 
maintain  that  in  order  to  render  man  justly  responsible  for  the  acts 
which  are  thus  determined  by  their  internal  state  or  character, 
that  state  must  itself  be  self-produced.  This  doctrine  has  already 
been  sufficiently  discussed  when  treating  of  original  sin.  It  may, 
however,  be  here  remarked,  in  conclusion  of  the  present  discussion, 
that  the  principle  assumed  is  contrary  to  the  common  judgment  of 
men.  That  judgment  is  that  the  dispositions  and  feelings  which 
constitute  character  derive  their  morality  or  immorality  from  their 
nature,  and  not  from  their  origin.  Malignity  is  evil  and  love  is 
good,  whether  concreated,  innate,  acquired,  or  infused.  It  may  be 
difficult  to  reconcile  the  doctrine  of  innate  evil  dispositions  with  the 
justice  and  goodness  of  God,  but  that  is  a  difficulty  which  does 
not  pertain  to  this  subject.  A  malignant  being  is  an  evil  being,  if 
endowed  with  reason,  whether  he  was  so  made  or  so  born.  And 
a  benevolent  rational  being  is  good  in  the  universal  judgment  of 
men,  whether  he  was  so  created  or  so  born.  We  admit  that  it  is 
repugnant  to  our  moral  judgments  that  God  should  create  an  evil 
being ;  or  that  any  being  should  be  born  in  a  state  of  sin,  unless 
his  being  so  born  is  the  consequence  of  a  just  judgment.  But  this 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  whether  moral  dispositions  do 
not  owe  their  character  to  their  nature.  The  common  judgment 
of  men  is  that  they  do.  If  a  man  is  really  humble,  benevolent, 
and  holy,  he  is  so  regarded,  irrespective  of  all  inquiry  how  he 
became  so. 

A  second  remark  on  the  principle  above  stated,  is,  that  it  is  not 
only  opposed  to  the  common  judgment  of  men,  but  that  it  is  also 
contraiy  to  the  faith  of  the  whole  Christian  Church.  We  trust  that 
this  language  will  not  be  attributed  to  a  self-confident  or  dogmatic 
spirit.  We  recognize  no  higher  standard  of  truth  apart  from  the 
infallible  word  of  God,  than  the  teachings  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
revealed  in  the  faith  of  the  people  of  God.  It  is  beyond  dispute 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  universal,  that  Adam  was  created  holy ; 
that  his  moral  character  was  not  self-acquired.  It  is  no  less  the 
doctrine  of  the  universal  Church,  that  men,  since  the  fall,  are  born 
unholy ;  and  it  is  also  included  in  the  faith  of  all  Christian  Churches, 
that  in  regeneration  men  are  made  holy,  not  by  their  own  act,  but 
by  the  act  of  God.  In  other  words,  the  doctrines  of  original  right- 
eousness, of  original  sin,  and  of  regeneration  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
are,  and  ever  have  been  the  avowed  doctrines  of  the  Greek,  Latin, 
and  Protestant  Churches :  and  if  these  doctrines  are,  as  these 
Churches  all  believe,  contained  in  the  word  of  God,  then  it  cannot 


§3.]  CERTAINTr  CONSISTENT  WITH  LIBERTY.  309 

be  true  that  moral  character,  in  order  to  be  the  object  of  approba- 
tion or  disapprobation,  must  be  self-acquired.  A  man,  therefore, 
may  be  justly  accountable  for  acts  which  are  determined  by  his 
character,  whether  that  character  or  inward  state  be  inherited, 
acquired,  or  induced  by  the  grace  of  God. 


SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 


PART    III. 
SOTERIOLOGY. 


PART  III.— SOTERIOLOGY. 

Under  tliis  head  are  included  God's  purpose  and  plan  in  rela- 
tion to  the  salvation  of  men  ;  tlie  person  and  work  of  the  Re- 
deemer ;  and  the  application  of  that  work  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
the  actual  salvation  of  the  people  of  God. 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE  PLAN  OF  SALVATION. 

§  1.   Q-od  has  sueh  a  Plan, 

The  Scriptures  speak  of  an  Economy  of  Redemption ;  the  plan 
or  purpose  of  God  in  relation  to  the  salvation  of  men.  They  call 
it  in  reference  to  its  full  revelation  at  the  time  of  the  advent,  the 
olKovofua  Tov  TrXr/pco/xaros  twv  Kaipwv,  "  The  economy  of  the  fulness 
of  times."  It  is  declared  to  be  the  plan  of  God  in  relation  to  his 
gathering  into  one  harmonious  body,  all  the  objects  of  redemption, 
whether  in  heaven  or  earth,  in  Christ.  Eph.  i.  10.  It  is  also 
called  the  oiKovofiia  tov  fiva-rqpiov,  the  mysterious  purpose  or  plan 
which  had  been  hidden  for  ages  in  God,  which  it  was  the  great 
design  of  the  gospel  to  reveal,  and  which  was  intended  to  make 
known  to  principalities  and  powers,  by  the  Church,  the  manifold 
wisdom  of  God.     Eph.  iii.  9. 

A  plan  supposes :  (1.)  The  selection  of  some  definite  end  or 
object  to  be  accomplished.  (2.)  The  choice  of  appropriate  means. 
(3.)  At  least  in  the  case  of  God,  the  effectual  application  and  con- 
trol of  those  means  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  contemplated 
end. 

As  God  works  on  a  definite  plan  in  the  external  world,  it  is  fair 
to  infer  that  the  same  is  true  in  reference  to  the  moral  and  spiritual 
world.  To  the  eye  of  an  uneducated  man  the  heavens  are  a  chaos 
of  stars.  The  astronomer  sees  order  and  system  in  this  confusion ; 
all  those  bright  and  distant  luminaries  have  their  appointed  places 
and  fixed  orbits ;  all  are  so  arranged  that  no  one  interferes  with 
any  other,  but  each  is  directed  according  to  one  comprehensive 
and  magnificent  conception.     The  innumerable  forms  of  vegetable 


314  PART  m.   Ch.  I.  —  THE  PLAN  OF   SALVATION. 

life,  are  not  a  confused  mass,  but  to  the  eye  of  science  arrange 
tliemselves  into  regular  classes,  orders,  genera,  and  species,  exhib- 
iting a  unity  of  design  pervading  the  whole.  The  zoologist  sees 
in  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  animals  which  inhabit  our  globe, 
four,  and  only  four  original  typical  forms,  of  which  all  the  others 
are  the  development  in  an  ascending  order,  no  one  ever  passing 
into  the  other,  but  all  presenting  one  great  comprehensive  system 
carried  out  in  all  its  details.  At  the  head  of  these  innumerable 
lower  forms  of  animal  life,  stands  man,  endowed  with  powers  which 
elevate  him  above  the  class  of  mere  animals  and  bring  him  into 
fellowship  with  angels  and  with  God  himself.  As  in  all  these  lower 
departments  of  his  works,  God  acts  according  to  a  preconceived 
plan,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  in  the  higher  sphere  of  his  opera- 
tions, which  concerns  the  destiny  of  men,  everything  is  left  to 
chance  and  allowed  to  take  its  undirected  course  to  an  undeter- 
mined end.  We  accordingly  find  that  the  Scriptures  distinctly 
assert  in  reference  to  the  dispensations  of  grace  not  only  that  God 
sees  the  end  from  the  beginning,  but  that  He  works  all  things  ac- 
cording to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will,  or,  according  to  his  eternal 
purpose. 

The  Importance  of  a  Knowledge  of  this  Plan. 
If  there  be  such  a  plan  concerning  the  redemption  of  man,  it  is 
obviously  of  the  greatest  importance  that  it  should  be  known  and 
correctly  apprehended.  If  in  looking  at  a  complicated  machine 
we  are  ignorant  of  the  object  it  is  designed  to  accomplish,  or  of  the 
relation  of  its  several  parts,  we  must  be  unable  to  understand  or 
usefully  to  apply  it.  In  like  manner  if  we  are  ignorant  of  the 
great  end  aimed  at  in  the  scheme  of  redemption,  or  of  the  relation 
of  the  several  parts  of  that  scheme ;  or  if  we  misconceive  that  end 
and  that  relation,  all  our  views  must  be  confused  or  erroneous.  We 
shall  be  unable  either  to  exhibit  it  to  others  or  to  apply  it  to  our- 
selves. If  the  end  of  redemption  as  well  as  of  creation  and  of 
providence,  is  the  production  of  the  greatest  amount  of  happiness, 
then  Christianity  is  one  thing  ;  if  the  end  be  the  glory  of  God,  then 
Christianity  is  another  thing.  The  whole  character  of  our  theology 
and  religion  depends  on  the  answer  to  that  question.  In  like  man- 
ner, if  the  special  and  proximate  design  of  redemption  is  to  render 
certain  the  salvation  of  the  people  of  God,  then  the  whole  Augus- 
tinian  system  follows  by  a  logical  necessity ;  if  its  design  is  simply 
to  render  the  salvation  of  all  men  possible,  the  opposite  system 
must  be  received  as  true.  The  order  of  the  divine  decrees,  or  in 
other  words,  the  relation  in  which  the  several  parts  of  the  divine 


§1.]  GOD  HAS  SUCH  A  PLAN.  315 

plan  stand  to  each  other,  is  therefore  very  far  from  being  a  matter 
of  idle  speculation.  It  must  determine  our  theology,  and  our  the- 
ology determines  our  religion. 

How  the  Plan  of  Crod  can  he  known. 

If  there  be  such  a  preconceived  divine  scheme  relating  to  the  sal- 
vation of  men  ;  and  if  the  proper  comprehension  of  that  scheme  be 
thus  important,  the  next  question  is,  How  can  it  be  ascertained  ? 
The  first  answer  to  this  question  is  that  in  every  system  of  facts 
which  are  really  related  to  each  other,  the  relation  is  revealed  in 
the  nature  of  the  facts.  The  astronomer,  the  geologist,  and  the 
zoologist  very  soon  discover  that  the  facts  of  their  several  sciences 
stand  in  a  certain  relation  to  each  other,  and  admit  of  no  other. 
If  the  relation  be  not  admitted  the  facts  themselves  must  be  denied 
or  distorted.  The  only  source  of  mistake  is  either  an  incomplete 
induction  of  the  facts,  or  failing  to  allow  them  their  due  relative 
importance.  One  system  of  astronomy  has  given  place  to  another, 
only  because  the  earlier  astronomers  were  not  acquainted  with 
facts  which  their  successors  discovered.  The  science  has  at  last 
attained  a  state  which  commands  the  assent  of  all  competent  minds, 
and  which  cannot  be  hereafter  seriously  modified.  The  same,  to 
a  greater  or  less  extent,  is  true  in  all  departments  of  natural  sci- 
ence. It  must  be  no  less  true  in  theology.  What  the  facts  of 
nature  are  to  the  naturalist,  the  facts  of  the  Bible  and  of  our  moral 
and  religious  consciousness,  are  to  the  theologian.  If,  for  example, 
the  Bible  and  experience  teach  the  fact  of  the  entire  inability  of 
fallen  men  to  anything  spiritually  good,  that  fact  stubbornly  refuses 
to  harmonize  with  any  system  which  denies  efficacious  grace  or 
sovereign  election.  It  of  itself  determines  the  relation  in  which 
the  eternal  purpose  of  God  stands  to  the  salvation  of  the  individual 
sinner.  So  of  all  other  great  Scriptural  facts.  They  arrange  them- 
selves in  a  certain  order  by  an  inward  law,  just  as  certainly  and  as 
clearly  as  the  particles  of  matter  in  the  process  of  crystallization,  or 
in  the  organic  unity  of  the  body  of  an  animal.  It  is  true  here  as  in 
natural  science,  that  it  is  only  by  an  imperfect  induction  of  facts, 
or  by  denying  or  perverting  them,  that  their  relative  position  in  the 
scheme  of  salvation  can  be  a  matter  of  doubt  or  of  diversity  of 
opinion.  But  secondly,  we  have  in  theology  a  guide  which  the 
man  of  science  does  not  possess.  We  have  in  the  Scriptures  not 
only  the  revelation  of  the  grand  design  of  God  in  all  his  works  of 
creation,  providence,  and  redemption,  which  is  declared  to  be  his 
own  glory,  but  we  have,  in  many  cases,  the  relation  which  one 


316   PART  in.  ch.  l  — the  plan  of  salvation. 

part  of  this  scheme  bears  to  other  parts  expressly  stated.  Thus, 
for  example,  it  is  said,  that  Christ  died  in  order  that  He  might 
save  his  people  from  their  sins.  We  are  elected  to  holiness. 
Therefore  election  precedes  sanctification.  We  are  chosen  to  be 
made  holy,  and  not  because  we  are  holy;  These  revelations  con- 
cerning the  relation  of  the  subordinate  parts  of  the  scheme  of 
redemption,  of  necessity  determine  the  nature  of  the  whole  plan. 
This  will  become  plain  from  what  follows. 

As  men  differ  in  their  understanding  of  the  facts  of  Scripture, 
and  as  some  are  more  careful  than  others  to  gather  all  the  facts 
which  are  to  be  considered,  or  more  faithful  in  submitting  to  their 
authority,  so  they  differ  in  their  views  of  the  plan  which  God  has 
devised  for  the  salvation  of  men.  The  more  important  of  the  views 
which  have  been  adopted  on  this  subject  are,  — 

§  2.  Supralapsarianism. 

First,  the  supralapsarian  scheme.  According  to  this  view,  God 
in  order  to  manifest  his  grace  and  justice  selected  from  creatable 
men  (i,  e.,  from  men  to  be  created)  a  certain  number  to  be  vessels 
of  mercy,  and  certain  others  to  be  vessels  of  wrath.  In  the  order 
of  thought,  election  and  reprobation  precede  the  purpose  to  create 
and  to  permit  the  fall.  Creation  is  in  order  to  redemption.  God 
creates  some  to  be  saved,  and  others  to  be  lost. 

This  scheme  is  called  supralapsarian  because  it  supposes  that 
men  as  unfallen,  or  before  the  fall,  are  the  objects  of  election  to 
eternal  life,  and  foreordination  to  eternal  death.  This  view  was 
introduced  among  a  certain  class  of  Augustinians  even  before  the 
Reformation,  but  has  not  been  generally  received.  Augustine 
himself,  and  after  him  the  great  body  of  those  who  adopt  his  system 
of  doctrine,  were,  and  are,  infralapsarians.  That  is,  they  hold  that 
it  is  from  the  mass  of  fallen  men  that  some  were  elected  to  eternal 
life,  and  some  for  the  just  punishment  of  their  sins,  foreordained  to 
eternal  death.  The  position  of  Calvin  himself  as  to  this  point  has 
been  disputed.  As  it  was  not  in  his  day  a  special  matter  of 
discussion,  certain  passages  may  be  quoted  from  his  writings  which 
favour  the  supralapsarian  and  other  passages  which  favour  the 
infralapsarian  view.  In  the  "  Consensus  Genevensis,"  written  by 
him,  there  is  an  explicit  assertion  of  the  infralapsarian  doctrine. 
After  saying  that  there  was  little  benefit  in  speculating  on  the  fore- 
ordination of  the  fall  of  man,  he  adds,  "  Quod  ex  damnata  AdaB 
sobole  Deus  quos  visum  est  eligit,  quos  vult  reprobat,  sicuti  ad 
fidem  exercendam  longe   aptior  est,  ita  majore  fructu  tractatur."^ 

1  Niemeyer,  Collectio  Confessionum,  p.  269. 


I 


§  2.]  SUPRALAPSARIANISM.  317 

In  the  "Formula  Consensus  Helvetica,"  drawn  up  as  the  testimony 
of  the  Swiss  churches  in  1675,  whose  principal  authors  were  Heid- 
egger and  Turrettin,  there  is  a  formal  repudiation  of  the  supralap- 
sarian  view.  In  the  Synod  of  Dort,  which  embraced  delegates 
from  all  the  Reformed  churches  on  the  Continent  and  in  Gr«at 
Britain,  a  large  majority  of  the  members  were  infralapsarians, 
Gomarus  and  Voetius  being  the  prominent  advocates  of  the  opposite 
view.  The  canons  of  that  synod,  while  avoiding  any  extreme 
statements,  were  so  framed  as  to  give  a  symbolical  authority  to  the 
infralapsarian  doctrine.  They  say :  ^  "  Cum  omnes  homines  in 
Adamo  peccaverint  et  rei  sint  facti  maledictionis  et  mortis  isternae, 
Deus  nemini  fecisset  injurlam,  si  universum  genus  humanum  in 
peccato  et  maledictione  relinquere,  ac  propter  peccatum  damnare 
voluisset."  The  same  remark  applies  to  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly. Twiss,  the  Prolocutor  of  that  venerable  body,  was  a  zealous 
supralapsarian ;  the  great  majority  of  its  members,  however,  were 
on  the  other  side.  The  symbols  of  that  Assembly,  while  they 
clearly  imply  the  infralapsarian  view,  were  yet  so  framed  as  to 
avoid  offence  to  those  who  adopted  the  supralapsarian  theory.  In 
the  "Westminster  Confession,"''^  it  is  said  that  God  appointed  the 
elect  unto  eternal  life,  and  "the  rest  of  mankind,  God  was  pleased, 
according  to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own  will,  whereby 
He  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  He  pleaseth,  for  the  glory  of 
his  sovereign  power  over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain 
them  to  dishonour  and  wrath  for  their  sin,  to  the  praise  of  his 
glorious  justice."  It  is  here  taught  that  those  whom  God  passes 
by  are  "  the  rest  of  mankind  ; "  not  the  rest  of  ideal  or  possible 
men,  but  the  rest  of  those  human  beings  who  constitute  mankind, 
or  the  human  race.  In  the  second  place,  the  passage  quoted 
teaches  that  the  non-elect  are  passed  by  and  ordained  to  wrath 
"  for  their  sin."  This  implies  that  they  were  contemplated  as  sin- 
ful before  this  foreordination  to  judgment.  The  infralapsarian 
view  is  still  more  obviously  assumed  in  the  answers  to  the  19th  and 
20th  questions  in  the  "  Shorter  Catechism."  It  is  there  taught 
that  all  mankind  by  the  fall  lost  communion  with  God,  and  are 
under  his  wrath  and  curse,  and  that  God  out  of  his  mere  good 
pleasure  elected  some  (some  of  those  under  his  wrath  and  curse), 
unto  everlasting  life.  Such  has  been  the  doctrine  of  the  great 
body  of  Augustinians  from  the  time  of  Augustine  to  the  present 
day. 

1  Caput  I.  art.  1 ;  Acta  Synodi,  edit.  Dort,  1620,  p.  241. 

2  Chapter  iii.  §§  6,  7. 


318  PART  m.    Ch.  1.  —  THE   PLAN   OF   SALVATION. 

Objections  to  Supralapsarianism. 
The  most  obvious  objections  to  the  supralapsarian  theory  are, 
(1.)  That  it  seems  to  involve  a  contradiction.  Of  a  Non  En»^  as 
Turrettin  says,  nothing  can  be  determined.  The  purpose  to  save 
or  condemn,  of  necessity  must,  in  the  order  of  thought,  follow  the 
purpose  to  create.  The  latter  is  presupposed  in  the  former. 
(2.)  It  is  a  clearly  revealed  Scriptural  principle  that  where  there 
is  no  sin  there  is  no  condemnation.  Therefore  there  can  be  no 
foreordination  to  death  which  does  not  contemplate  its  objects  as 
already  sinful.  (3.)  It  seems  plain  from  the  whole  argument  of 
the  Apostle  in  Rom.  ix.  9-21,  that  the  "  mass "  out  of  which 
some  are  chosen  and  others  left,  is  the  mass  of  fallen  men.  The 
design  of  the  sacred  writer  is  to  vindicate  the  sovereignty  of  God 
in  the  dispensation  of  his  grace.  He  has  mercy  upon  one  and  not  on 
another,  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure,  because  all  are  equally 
unworthy  and  guilty.  The  vindication  is  drawn,  not  only  from  the 
relation  of  God  to  his  creatures  as  their  Creator,  but  also  from  his 
relation  to  them  as  a  sovereign  whose  laws  they  have  violated. 
This  representation  pervades  the  whole  Scriptures.  Believers  are 
said  to  be  chosen  "  out  of  the  world  ;  "  that  is,  out  of  the  mass  of 
fallen  men.  And  everywhere,  as  in  Rom.  i.  24,  26,  28,  reprobation 
is  declared  to  be  judicial,  founded  upon  the  sinfulness  of  its  objects. 
Otherwise  it  could  not  be  a  manifestation  of  the  justice  of  God. 
(4.)  Creation  is  never  in  the  Bible  represented  as  a  means  of 
executing  the  purpose  of  election  and  reprobation.  This,  as  just 
remarked,  cannot  be  so.  The  objects  of  election  are  definite  indi- 
viduals, as  in  this  controversy  is  admitted.  But  the  only  thing 
which  distinguishes  between  merely  possible  or  "  creatable  "  men 
and  definite  individuals,  certain  to  be  created  and  saved  or  lost,  is 
the  divine  purpose  that  they  shall  be  created.  So  that  the  purpose 
to  create  of  necessity,  in  the  order  of  nature,  precedes  the  purpose 
to  redeem.  Accordingly,  in  Rom.  vili.  29,  30,  Tr/soyvwo-ts  is  declared 
to  precede  irpoopicrfjios.  "  Whom  he  did  foreknow  he  also  did  pre- 
destinate." But  foreknowledge  implies  the  certain  existence  of  its 
objects  ;  and  certainty  of  existence  supposes  on  the  part  of  God  the 
purpose  to  create.  Nothing  is  or  is  to  be  but  in  virtue  of  the  decree 
of  Him  who  foreordains  whatever  comes  to  pass.  All  futurition, 
therefore,  depends  on  foreordination  ;  and  foreknowledge  supposes 
futurition.  We  have,  therefore,  the  express  authority  of  the  Apostle 
for  saying  that  foreknowledge,  founded  on  the  purpose  to  create, 
precedes  predestination.     And,  therefore,  creation  is  not  a  means 


I 


§  3.]  INFRALAPSARIANISM.  319 

to  execute  the  purpose  of  predestination,  for  the  end  must  precede 
the  means ;  and,  according  to  Paul,  the  purpose  to  create  precedes 
the  purpose  to  redeem,  and  therefore  cannot  be  a  means  to  that 
end.  Our  Lord,  we  are  told,  was  delivered  to  death  "  by  the 
determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God."  But  his  death,  of 
necessity,  supposed  his  incarnation,  and  therefore  in  the  order  of 
thought,  or  in  the  plan  of  God,  the  purpose  to  prepare  Him  a  body 
preceded  the  purpose  to  deliver  Him  to  the  death  of  the  cross.  The 
only  passage  of  the  Bible  which  appears  to  teach  explicitly  that  cre- 
ation is  a  means  for  the  execution  of  the  purpose  of  predestination 
is  Eph.  iii.  9, 10.  There,  according  to  some  it  is  said  that  God  cre- 
ated all  things  in  order  that  (tva)  his  manifold  wisdom  might  be 
known  through  the  Church.  If  this  be  the  relation  between  the  sev- 
eral clauses  of  these  verses  the  Apostle  does  teach  that  the  universe 
was  created  in  order  that  through  redeemed  men  (the  Church)  the 
glory  of  God  should  be  revealed  to  all  rational  creatures.  In  this 
sense  and  in  this  case  creation  is  declared  to  be  a  means  to  redemp- 
tion ;  and  therefore  the  purpose  to  redeem  must  precede  the  purpose 
to  create.  Such,  however,  is  not  the  logical  connection  of  the 
clauses  in  this  passage.  Paul  does  not  say  that  God  created  all 
things  in  order  that.  He  is  not  speaking  of  the  design  of  crea- 
tion, but  of  the  design  of  the  gospel  and  of  his  own  call  to  the 
apostleship.  To  me,  he  says,  is  this  grace  given  that  I  should 
preach  among  the  Gentiles  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ,  and 
to  enlighten  all  men  in  the  knowledge  of  the  mystery  (of  redemp- 
tion, i.  g.,  the  gospel)  in  order  that  by  the  Church  should  be  made 
known  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God.  Such  is  the  natural  connec- 
tion of  the  passage,  and  such  is  the  interpretation  adopted  by  modern 
commentators  entirely  irrespective  of  the  bearing  of  the  passage  on 
the  supralapsarian  controversy.  (5.)  It  is  a  further  objection  to 
the  supralapsarian  scheme  that  it  is  not  consistent  with  the  Scrip- 
tural exhibition  of  the  character  of  God.  He  is  declared  to  be  a 
God  of  mercy  and  justice.  But  it  is  not  compatible  with  these 
divine  attributes  that  men  should  be  foreordained  to  misery  and 
eternal  death  as  innocent,  that  is,  before  they  had  apostatized  from 
God.  If  passed  by  and  foi'eordained  to  death /o7*  their  sins,  it  must 
be  that  in  predestination  they  are  contemplated  as  guilty  and  fallen 
creatures. 

§  3.  Tnfralapsarianism. 

According  to  the  infralapsarian  doctrine,  God,  with  the  design  to 
reveal  his  own  glory,  that  is,  the  perfections  of  his  own  nature, 
determined  to  create  the  world  ;  secondly,  to  permit  the  fall  of 


320   PART  m.  ch.  l  — the  plan  of  salvation. 

man  ;  thirdly,  to  elect  from  the  mass  of  fallen  men  a  multitude 
whom  no  man  could  number  as  "  vessels  of  mercy  ;  "  fourthly,  to 
send  his  Son  for  their  redemption ;  and,  fifthly,  to  leave  the  residue 
of  mankind,  as  He  left  the  fallen  angels,  to  suffer  the  just  punish- 
ment of  their  sins. 

The  arguments  in  favour  of  this  view  of  the  divine  plan  have 
already  been  presented  in  the  form  of  objections  to  the  supralapsa- 
rian  theory.     It  may,  however,  be  further  remarked,  — 

1.  That  this  view  is  self-consistent  and  harmonious.  As  all  the 
decrees  of  God  are  one  comprehensive  purpose,  no  view  of  the  rela- 
tion of  the  details  embraced  in  that  purpose  which  does  not  admit  of 
their  being  reduced  to  unity  can  be  admitted.  In  every  great  mech- 
anism, whatever  the  number  or  complexity  of  its  parts,  there  must 
be  unity  of  design.  Every  part  bears  a  given  relation  to  every  other 
part,  and  the  perception  of  that  relation  is  necessary  to  a  proper 
understanding  of  the  whole.  Again,  as  the  decrees  of  God  are 
eternal  and  immutable,  no  view  of  his  plan  of  operation  which 
supposes  Him  to  purpose  first  one  thing  and  then  another  can  bo 
consistent  with  their  nature.  And  as  God  is  absolutely  sovereign 
and  independent,  all  his  purposes  must  be  determined  from  within 
or  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  They  cannot  be  sup- 
posed to  be  contingent  or  suspended  on  the  action  of  his  creatures, 
or  upon  anything  out  of  Himself  The  infralapsarian  scheme,  as 
held  by  most  Augustinians,  fulfils  all  these  conditions.  All  the 
particulars  form  one  comprehensive  whole.  All  follow  in  an  order 
which  supposes  no  change  of  purpose  ;  and  all  depend  on  the  infi- 
nitely wise,  holy,  and  righteous  will  of  God.  The  final  end  is  the 
glory  of  God.  For  that  end  He  creates  the  world,  allows  the  fall ; 
from  among  fallen  men  He  elects  some  to  everlasting  life,  and 
leaves  the  rest  to  the  just  recompense  of  their  sins.  Whom  He 
elects  He  calls,  justifies,  and  glorifies.  This  is  the  golden  chain 
the  links  of  which  cannot  be  separated  or  transposed.  This  is  the 
form  in  which  the  scheme  of  redemption  lay  in  the  Apostle's  mind 
as  he  teaches  us  in  Rom.  viii.  29,  30. 

Different  Meanings  assigned  the  Word  Predestination. 

2.  There  is  an  ambiguity  in  the  word  predestination.  It  may  be 
used,  first,  in  the  general  sense  of  foreordination.  In  this  sense  it 
has  equal  reference  to  all  events ;  for  God  foreordains  whatever 
comes  to  pass.  Secondly,  it  may  refer  to  the  general  purpose 
of  redemption  without  reference  to  particular  individuals.  God 
predetermined  to  reveal  his  attributes  in  redeeming  sinners,  as  He 


§4.]  "HYPOTHETICAL   REDEMPTION."  321 

predetermined  to  create  the  heavens  and  the  earth  to  manifest  his 
power,  wisdom,  and  benevolence.  Thirdly,  it  is  used  in  theology 
generally  to  express  the  purpose  of  God  in  relation  to  the  salvation 
of  individual  men.  It  includes  the  selection  of  one  portion  of  the 
race  to  be  saved,  and  the  leaving  the  rest  to  perish  in  sin.  It  is  in 
this  sense  used  by  supralapsarians,  who  teach  that  God  selected  a 
certain  number  of  individual  men  to  be  created  in  order  to  salvation, 
and  a  certain  number  to  be  created  to  be  vessels  of  wrath.  It  is  in 
this  way  they  subordinate  creation  to  predestination  as  a  means  to 
an  end.  It  is  to  this  that  infralapsarians  object  as  inconceivable, 
repugnant  to  the  nature  of  God,  and  unscriptural.  Taking  the 
word  predestination,  however,  in  the  second  of  the  senses  above 
mentioned,  it  may  be  admitted  that  it  precedes  in  the  order  of 
thought  the  purpose  to  create.  This  view  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
the  doctrine  which  makes  man  as  created  and  fallen  the  object  of 
predestination  in  the  third  and  commonly  received  meaning  of  the 
word.  The  Apostle  teaches  in  Col.  i.  16,  that  all  things  visible 
and  invisible  were  created  by  and  for  Him  who  is  the  image  of  the 
invisible  God,  who  is  before  all  things,  by  whom  all  things  consist, 
and  who  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  Church.  The  end  of  creation, 
therefore,  is  not  merely  the  glory  of  God,  but  the  special  manifes- 
tation of  that  glory  in  the  person  and  work  of  Christ.  As  He  is 
the  Alpha,  so  also  is  He  the  Omega  ;  the  beginning  and  the  end. 
Having  this  great  end  in  view,  the  revelation  of  Himself  in  the 
person  and  work  of  his  Son,  He  purposed  to  create,  to  permit  the 
fall,  to  elect  some  to  be  the  subjects  of  his  grace  and  to  leave  others 
in  their  sin.  This  view,  as  it  seems,  agrees  with  the  representations 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  avoids  the  difficulties  connected  with  the 
strict  supralapsarian  doctrine.  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
object  of  these  speculations  is  not  to  pry  into  the  operation  of  the 
divine  mind,  but  simply  to  ascertain  and  exhibit  the  relation  in 
which  the  several  truths  revealed  in  Scripture  concerning  the  plan 
of  redemption  bear  to  each  other. 

§  4.  "  Hypothetical  Redemption.''^ 
According  to  the  common  doctrine  of  Augustinians,  as  expressed 
in  the  Westminster  Catechism,  "  God,  having  ....  elected  some 
to  everlasting  life,  did  enter  into  a  covenant  of  grace,  to  deliver  them 
out  of  the  estate  of  sin  and  misery,  and  to  bring  them  into  an  estate 
of  salvation  by  a  Redeemer."  In  opposition  to  this  view  some  of 
the  Reformed  theologians  of  the  seventeenth  centurv  introduced  the 
scheme  which  is  known  in  the  history  of  theology  as  the  doctrine 

VOL.  II.  21 


32-2         PART  III.     Ch.  I  — the   plan   OF   SALVATION. 

of  hypothetical  redemption.  The  principal  advocate  of  this  doctrine 
was  Amjraut  (died  1664),  Professor  in  the  French  Protestant 
Seminary  at  Saumur.  He  taught,  (1.)  That  the  motive  impelMno- 
God  to  redeem  men  was  benevolence,  or  love  to  men  in  o-eneral. 
(2.)  From  this  motive  He  sent  His  Son  to  make  the  salvation  of 
all  men  possible.  (3.)  God,  in  virtue  of  a  deeretum.  universale 
hi/potheticum,  offers  salvation  to  all  men  if  they  believe  in  Christ. 
(4.)  All  men  have  a  natural  ability  to  repent  and  believe. 
(5.)  But  as  this  natural  ability  was  counteracted  by  a  moral  ina- 
bility, God  determined  to  give  his  efficacious  grace  to  a  certain 
number  of  the  human  race,  and  thus  to  secure  their  salvation. 

This  scheme  is  sometimes  designated  as  "  universalismus  hypo- 
theticus."  It  was  designed  to  take  a  middle  ground  between  Au- 
gustinianism  and  Arminianism.  It  is  liable  to  the  objections  which 
press  on  both  systems.  It  does  not  remove  the  peculiar  difficulties 
of  Augustinianism,  as  it  asserts  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  election. 
Besides,  it  leaves  the  case  of  the  heathen  out  of  view.  They, 
having  no  knowledge  of  Christ,  could  not  avail  themselves  of  this 
decretum  liypotheticum,  and  therefore  must  be  considered  as  passed 
over  by  a  decretum  absolutum.  It  was  against  this  doctrine  of 
Amyraut  and  other  departures  from  the  standards  of  the  Reformed 
Church  that,  in  1675,  the  "Formula  Consensus  Helvetica"  was 
adopted  by  the  churches  of  Switzerland.  This  theory  of  the  French 
theologians  soon  passed  away  as  far  as  the  Reformed  churches  in 
Europe  were  concerned.  Its  advocates  either  returned  to  the  old 
doctrine,  or  passed  on  to  the  more  advanced  system  of  the  Armin- 
ians.     In  this  country  it  has  been  revived  and  extensively  adopted. 

At  first  view  it  might  seem  a  small  matter  whether  we  say  that 
election  precedes  redemption  or  that  redemption  precedes  election. 
In  fact,  however,  it  is  .a  question  of  great  importance.  The  relation 
of  the  truths  of  the  Bible  is  determined  by  their  nature.  If  you 
change  their  relation  you  must  change  their  nature.  If  you  regard 
the  sun  as  a  planet  instead  of  as  the  centre  of  our  system  you  must 
believe  it  to  be  something  very  different  in  its  constitution  from 
what  it  actually  is.  So  in  a  scheme  of  thought,  if  you  make  the 
final  cause  a  means,  or  a  means  the  final  cause,  nothing  but  confusion 
can  be  the  result.  As  the  relation  of  election  to  redemption  depends 
on  the  nature  of  redemption  the  full  consideration  of  this  question 
must  be  reserved  until  the  work  of  Christ  has  been  considered. 
For  the  present  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  scheme  proposed  by 
the  French  theologians  is  liable  to  the  following  objections. 


§4.]  "HYPOTHETICAL   REDEMPTION."  323 

Arguments  against  this  Scheme. 

1.  It  supposes  mutability  in  the  divine  purposes  ;  or  that  the 
purpose  of  God  may  fail  of  accomplishment.  According  to  this 
scheme,  God,  oiit  of  benevolence  or  philanthropy,  purposed  the 
salvation  of  all  men,  and  sent  his  Son  for  their  redemption.  But 
seeing  that  such  purpose  could  not  be  carried  out,  He  determined 
by  his  efficacious  grace  to  secure  the  salvation  of  a  certain  portion 
of  the  human  race.  This  difficulty  the  scheme  involves,  however 
it  may  be  stated.  It  cannot  hovv^ever  be  supposed  that  God  intends 
what  is  never  accomplished  ;  that  He  purposes  what  He  does  not 
intend  to  effect ;  that  He  adopts  means  for  an  end  which  is  never 
to  be  attained.  This  cannot  be  affirmed  of  any  rational  being  who 
has  the  wisdom  and  power  to  secure  the  execution  of  his  purposes. 
Much  less  can  it  be  said  of  Him  whose  power  and  wisdom  are  infinite. 
If  all  men  are  not  saved,  God  never  purposed  their  salvation,  and 
never  devised  and  put  into  operation  means  designed  to  accomplish 
that  end.  We  must  assume  that  the  result  is  the  interpretation  of 
the  purposes  of  God.  If  He  foreordains  whatsoever  comes  to  pass, 
then  events  correspond  to  his  purposes ;  and  it  is  against  reason 
and  Scripture  to  suppose  that  there  is  any  contradiction  or  want  of  ^ 
correspondence  between  what  He  intended  and  what  actually  occurs. 
The  tlieory,  therefore,  which  assumes  that  God  purposed  the  salva- 
tion of  all  men,  and  sent  his  Son  to  die  as  a  means  to  accomplish 
that  end,  and  then  seeing,  or  foreseeing  that  such  end  could  not 
or  would  not  be  attained,  elected  a  part  of  the  race  to  be  the  subjects 
of  efficacious  grace,  cannot  be  admitted  as  Scriptural. 

2.  The  Bible  clearly  teaches  that  tlie  work  of  Christ  is  certainly 
efficacious.  It  renders  certain  the  attainment  of  the  end  it  was 
designed  to  accomplish.  It  was  intended  to  save  his  people,  and 
not  merely  to  make  the  salvation  of  all  men  possible.  It  was  a  real 
satisfaction  to  justice,  and  therefore  necessarily  frees  from  condem- 
nation. It  was  a  ransom  paid  and  accepted,  and  therefore  certainly 
redeems.  If,  therefore,  equally  designed  for  all  men,  it  must  secure 
the  salvation  of  all.  If  designed  specially  for  the  elect,  it  renders 
their  salvation  certain,  and  therefore  election  precedes  redemption. 
God,  as  tlie  Westminster  Catechism  teaches,  having  elected  some  to 
eternal  life,  sent  his  Son  to  redeem  them. 

3.  The  Scriptures  further  teach  that  the  gift  of  Christ  secures 
the  gift  of  all  other  saving  blessings.  "He  that  spared  not  his  own 
Son,  but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all,  how  shall  he  not  with  him 
also  freely  give  us  all  things."      (Rom.  viii.  32.)     Hence  they  are 


324    PART  III.  Ch.  I.  — the  plan  OF  SALVAITON. 

certainly  saved  for  whom  God  delivered  up  liis  Son.  The  elect 
only  are  saved,  and  therefore  He  was  delivered  up  specially  for 
them,  and  consequently  election  must  precede  redemption.  The 
relation,  therefore,  of  redemption  to  election  is  as  clearly  determined 
by  the  nature  of  redemption  as  the  relation  of  the  sun  to  the  planets 
is  determined  by  the  nature  of  the  sun. 

4.  The  Bible  in  numerous  passages  directly  asserts  that  Christ 
came  to  redeem  his  people  ;  to  save  them  from  their  sins ;  and  to 
bring  them  to  God.  He  gave  Himself  for  his  Church  ;  He  laid 
down  his  life  for  his  sheep.  As  the  end  precedes  the  means,  if 
God  sent  his  Son  to  save  his  people,  if  Christ  gave  Himself  for  his 
Church,  then  his  people  were  selected  and  present  to  the  divine 
mind,  in  the  order  of  thought,  prior  to  the  gift  of  Christ. 

5.  If,  as  Paul  teaches  (Rom.  viii.  29,  30),  foreknowledge  pre- 
cedes predestination,  and  if  the  mission  of  Christ  is  the  means  of 
accomplishing  the  end  of  predestination,  then  of  necessity  predesti- 
nation to  eternal  life  precedes  the  gift  of  Christ.  Having,  as  we 
are  taught  in  Eph.  i.  4,  5,  predestinated  us  to  the  adopticm  of  sons, 
God  chose  us  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  and  sent  his  Son 
to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins.  This  is  the  order  of  the  divine 
purposes,  or  the  mutual  relation  of  the  truths  of  redemption  as 
presented  in  the  Scriptures. 

6.  The  motive  (so  to  speak)  of  God  in  sending  his  Son  is  not, 
as  this  theory  assumes,  general  benevolence  or  that  love  of  which 
all  men  are  equally  the  objects,  but  that  peculiar,  mysterious,  infinite 
love  in  which  God,  in  giving  his  Son,  gives  Himself  and  all  con- 
ceivable and  possible  good.  All  these  points,  however,  as  before 
remarked,  ask  for  further  consideration  when  we  come  to  treat  of 
the  nature  and  design  of  Christ's  work. 

§  5.    The  Lutheran  Doctrine  as  to  the  Plan  of  Salvation. 

It  is  not  easy  to  give  the  Lutlieran  doctrine  on  this  subject, 
because  it  is  stated  in  one  way  in  the  early  symbolical  books  of 
that  Church,  and  in  a  somewhat  different  way  in  the  "  Form  of 
Concord,"  and  in  the  writings  of  the  standard  Lutheran  theologians. 
Luther  himself  taught  the  strict  Augustinian  doctrine,  as  did  also 
Melancthon  in  the  first  edition  of  his  "  Loci  Communes."  In  the 
later  editions  of  that  work  Melancthon  taught  that  men  cooperate 
with  the  grace  of  God  in  conversion,  and  that  the  reason  why  one 
man  is  regenerated  and  another  not  is  to  be  found  in  that  coopera- 
tion. This  gave  rise  to  the  protracted  and  vehement  synergistic 
controversy,  which  for  a  long  time  seriously  disturbed  the  peace  of 


§5.]  THE  LUTHERAN  DOCTEINE.  325 

the  Lutheran  Church.  This  controversy  was  for  a  time  authorita- 
tively settled  by  the  "  Form  of  Concord,"  which  was  adopted  and 
enjoined  as  a  standard  of  orthodoxy  by  the  Lutherans.  In  this 
document  both  the  doctrine  of  cooperation  and  that  of  absolute 
predestination  were  rejected.  It  taught  the  entire  inability  of  tlie 
natural  man  for  anything  spiritually  good  ;  and  therefore  denied 
that  he  could  either  prepare  himself  for  regeneration  or  cooperate 
with  the  grace  of  God  in  that  work.  It  refers  the  regeneration  of 
tlie  sinner  exclusively  to  the  supernatural  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
It  is  the  work  of  God,  and  in  no  sense  or  degree  the  work  of  man. 
But  it  teaches  that  the  grace  of  God  may  be  effectually  resisted, 
and  that  the  reason  why  all  who  hear  the  gospel  are  not  saved  is 
that  some  do  thus  resist  the  influence  which  is  brought  to  bear  upon 
them,  and  others  do  not.  While,  therefore,  regeneration  is  exclu- 
sively the  work  of  the  Spirit,  the  failure  of  salvation  is  to  be  referred 
to  the  voluntary  resistance  of  offered  grace.  As  this  system  was 
illogical  and  contrary  to  the  clear  declarations  of  Scripture,  it  did 
not  long  maintain  its  ground.  Non-resistance  to  the  grace  of  God, 
passively  yielding  to  its  power,  is  something  good.  It  is  something 
by  which  one  class  is  favourably  distinguished  from  another  ;  and 
therefore  the  reason  why  they,  rather  than  others,  are  saved,  is  to 
be  referred  to  themselves  and  not  to  God,  who  gives  the  same  grace 
to  all.  The  later  Lutheran  theologians,  therefore,  have  abandoned 
the  ground  of  the  "  Form  of  Concord,"  and  teach  that  the  objects 
of  election  are  those  whom  God  foresaw  would  believe  and  persevere 
in  faith  unto  the  end, 

According  to  this  scheme,  God,  (1.)  From  general  benevolence 

or  love  to  the  fjillen  race  of  man,  wills  their  salvation  by  a  sincere 

purpose  and  intention.    "  Benevolentia  Dei  universalis,"  says  Hol- 

laz,  "  non  est  inane  votum,  non  sterilis  velleitas,  non  otiosa  compla- 

centia,  qua  quis  rem,  quse  sibi  placet,  et  quam  in  se  amat,  non  cupit 

efficere  aut  consequi  adeoque  mediis  ad  hunc  finem  ducentibus  non 

vult  uti ;  sed  est  voluntas  efficax,  qua  Deus  salutem  hominum,  arden- 

tissime  amatam,  etiam  eflKcere  atque  per  media  sufficientia  et  efficacia 

^  consequi  serio  intendit."  ^     (2.)   To  give  effect  to  this  general  jnir- 

»  pose  of  benevolence  and  mercy  towards  men  indiscriminately,  God 

H  determined  to  send  his  Son  to  make  a  full  satisfaction  for  their  sins. 

I  (3.)  To  this  follows  (in  the  order  of  thought)  the  purpose  to  give 

^L         to  all  men  the  means  of  salvation  and  the  power  to  avail  themselves 

^H         of  the  offered  mercy.    This  is  described  as  a  "  destinatio  mediorum, 

^H        quibus  turn  aeterna  salus  satisfactione  Christi  parta,  turn  vires  cre- 

^^B^  1  Examen  Theologkum  Acroamaticum,  Leipzig,  1763,  p.  599. 


326         PART  III.     Ch.  L— the  plan   OF   SALVATION. 

dendi  omnibus  homlnibus  offeruntur,  ut  satisfactionem  Cliristi  ad 
salutem  acceptare  et  sibi  applicare  queant."  ^  (4.)  Besides  this, 
voluntas  generalis  (as  relating  to  all  men)  and  antecedens,  as  going 
before  any  contemplated  action  of  men,  there  is  a  voluntas  specialise 
as  relating  to  certain  individual  men,  and  consequens^  as  following 
the  foresight  of  their  action.  This  voluntas  specialis  is  defined  as 
that  "  quae  peccatores  oblata  salutis  media  amplectentes  aterna 
salute  donare  constituit."^  So  Hutter^  says,  "Quia  (Dens) 
praevidit  ac  praescivit  maximam  mundi  partem  mediis  salutis  locum 
minime  relicturam  ac  proinde  in  Christum  non  credituram,  ideo 
Deus  de  illis  tantum  salvandis  fecit  decretum,  quos  actu  in  Chris- 
tum credituros  praBvidit."  Hollaz  expresses  the  same  view:* 
"  Electio  homlnum,  peccato  corruptorum,  ad  vitam  eeternam  a  Deo 
misericordlssimo  facta  est  intuitu  fidei  in  Christum  ad  finem  usque 
•vitae  perse verantis."  Again;  "  Simpliciter  quippe  et  categorice 
decrevit  Deus  hunc,  ilium,  istum  hominem  salvare,  quia  perseve- 
ranter  ipsius  in  Christum  fidem  certo  praevidit."^ 

The  Lutheran  doctrine,  therefore,  answers  the  question,  Why 
one  man  is  saved  and  another  not  ?  by  saying,  Because  the  one 
believes  and  the  other  does  not.  The  question,  Why  God  elects 
some  and  not  others,  and  predestinates  them  to  eternal  life  ?  is 
answered  by  saying.  Because  He  foresees  that  some  will  believe 
unto  the  end,  and  others  will  not.  If  asked,  Why  one  believes  and 
another  not?  the  answer  is.  Not  that  one  cooperates  with  the  grace 
of  God  and  the  other  does  not ;  but  that  some  resist  and  reject  the 
grace  offered  to  all,  and  others  do  not.  The  difficulty  arising  from 
the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  entire  corruption  of  our  fallen  nature, 
and  the  entire  inability  of  the  sinner  to  do  anything  spiritually  good, 
is  met  by  saying,  that  the  sinner  has  power  to  use  the  means  of 
grace,  he  can  hear  the  word  and  receive  the  sacraments,  and  as 
these  means  of  grace  are  imbued  with  a  divine  supernatural  power, 
they  produce  a  saving  effect  upon  all  who  do  not  voluntarily 
and  persistently  resist  their  influence.  Baptism,  in  the  case  of 
infants,  is  attended  by  the  regeneration  of  the  soul ;  and  therefore 
all  who  are  baptized  in  infancy  have  a  principle  of  grace  implanted 
in  them,  which,  if  cherished,  or,  if  not  voluntarily  quenched,  secures 
their  salvation.  Predestination  in  the  Lutheran  system  is  confined 
to   the   elect.      God   predestinates   those   whom    He   foresees    will 

1  HoUaz,  see  Die  Dogmalih  der  Evntigelisch-Lulherischen  Kirche,  von  Heinrich  Schmid, 
Dr.  und  Professor  der  Theologie  in  Erlangen,  3d  edition  Erlangeii,  1853,  p.  221. 

2  Schmid,  p.  214.  s  Schmid,  p.  226. 
•4  Kxamen,  p.  619.                                                           ^  Schmid,  p.  228. 


\ 


§6.]  THE   REMONSTRANT  DOCTRINE.  327 

persevere  in  faith  unto  salvation.     There  is  no  predestination  of 
unbeHevers  unto  death. 

§  6.    The  Remonstrant  Doctrine. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  seventeenth  century  Arminius  intro- 
duced a  new  system  of  doctrine  in  the  Reformed  churches  of  Hol- 
land, which  was  formally  condemned  by  the  Synod  of  Dort  which 
sat  from  November  1618  to  May  1619.  Against  the  decisions  of 
that  Synod  the  advocates  of  the  new  doctrine  presented  a  Remon- 
strance, and  hence  they  were  at  first  called  Remonstrants,  but  in 
after  years  their  more  common  designation  has  been  Arminians. 
Arminianism  is  a  much  lower  form  of  doctrine  than  Lutheranism. 
In  all  the  points  included  under  Anthropology  and  Soteriology  it 
is  a  much  more  serious  departure  from  the  system  of  Augustinian- 
ism  which  in  all  ages  has  been  the  life  of  the  church.  The  Ar- 
minians taught,  — 

1.  That  all  men  derive  from  Adam  a  corrupt  nature  by  which 
they  are  inclined  to  sin.  But  they  deny  that  this  corruption  is  of 
the  nature  of  sin.  Men  are  responsible  only  for  their  own  volun- 
tary acts  and  the  consequences  of  such  acts.  "  Peccatum  originale 
nee  habent  (Remonstrantes)  pro  peccato  proprie  dicto  ....  nee 
pro  malo,  quod  per  modum  proprie  dictse  poenae  ab  Adamo  in  pos- 
teros  dimanet,  sed  pro  malo  infirmitate."^  Limborch^  says,  "  At- 
qui  ilia  physica  est  impuritas  (namely,  the  deterioration  of  our 
nature  derived  from  Adam),  non  moralis:  et  tantum  abest  ut  sit 
vere  ac  proprie  dictum  peccatum." 

2.  They  deny  that  man  by  his  fall  has  lost  his  ability  to  good. 
Such  ability,  or  liberty  as  they  call  it,  is  essential  to  our  nature,  and 
cannot  be  lost  without  the  loss  of  humanity.  "  Innatam  arbitrii 
humani  libertatem  (J,,  e.,  ability)  olim  semel  in  creatione  datam, 
nunquam  ....  tollit  (Deus)."^ 

3.  This  ability,  however,  is  not  of  itself  sufficient  to  secure  the 
return  of  the  soul  to  God.  Men  need  the  preventing,  exciting, 
and  assisting  grace  of  God  in  order  to  their  conversion  and  holy 
living.  "  Gratiam  Dei  statuimus  esse  principium,  progressum  et 
complementum  omnis  boni :  adeo  ut  ne  ipse  quidem  regenitus 
absque  praecedente  ista,  sive  prgeveniente,  excitante,  prosequente 
et  cooperante  gratia,  bonum*  ullum  salutare  cogitare,  velle,  aut 
peragere  possit."* 

1  Apologia  pro  Confessione  Remonstraniium,  edit.  Leyden,  1630,  p.  84. 

2  Theologia  Christiana,  v.  xv.  15,  edit.  Amsterdam,  1715,  p.  439. 

8  Confessio  Remonstrantium,  vi.  6 ;  Episcopii  Opera,  edit.  Rotterdam,  1665,  vol.  ii.  part  2, 
p.  80. 
*  Ibid.  xvii.  6 ;  ut  supra,  p.  88. 


328    PART  III.  Ch.  L  — the  plan  OF  SALVATION. 

4.  This  divine  grace  is  afforded  to  all  men  in  sufficient  measure 
to  enable  them  to  repent,  believe,  and  keep  all  the  commandments 
of  God.  "  Gratia  efficax  vocatur  ex  eventu.  Ut  statuatur  gratia 
habere  ex  se  sufficientem  vim,  ad  producendum  consensum  in  vo- 
luntate,  sed  quia  vis  ilia  partialis  est,  non  posse  exire  in  actum  sive 
effectum  sortiri  sine  cooperatione  liberae  voluntatis  humanse,  ac 
proinde  ut  effectum  habeat,  ....  pendere  a  libera  voluntate."  ^ 
This  grace,  says  Limborch,  "  incitat,  exstimulat,  adjuvat  et  corro- 
borat,  quantum  satis  est,  ut  homo  reipsa  Deo  obediat  et  ad  finem 
in  obedientia  perseveret."  And  again :^  "Sufficiens  vocatio,  quando 
per  cooperationem  liberi  arbitrii  sortitur  suum  effectum,  vocatur 
efficax." 

5.  Those  who  of  their  own  free  will,  and  in  the  exercise  of  that 
ability  which  belongs  to  them  since  the  fall,  cooperate  with  this 
divine  grace,  are  converted,  and  saved.  "  Etsi  vero  maxima  est 
gratis  disparitas,  pro  Uberrima  scilicet  voluntatis  divinae  dispensa- 
tione  tamen  Spiritus  Sanctus  omnibus  et  singulis,  quibus  verbum 
fidei  ordinarie  prtedicatur,  tantum  gratige  confert,  aut  saltem  con- 
ferre  paratus  est,  quantum  ad  fidem  ingenerandum,  et  ad  promo- 
vendum  suis  gradibus  salutarem  ipsorum  conversionem  sufficit."  ^ 
The  Apology  for  the  Remonstrance,  and  especially  the  Remon- 
strant Theologians,  as  Episcopius  and  Limborch,  go  farther  than 
this.  Instead  of  limiting  this  sufficient  grace  to  those  who  hear 
the  gospel,  they  extend  it  to  all  mankind. 

6.  Those  who  thus  believe  are  predestinated  to  eternal  life,  not 
however  as  individuals,  but  as  a  class.  The  decree  of  election 
does  not  concern  persons,  it  is  simply  the  purpose  of  God  to  save 
believers.  "  Decretum  vocant  Remonstrantes  decretum  prredesti- 
nationis  ad  salutem,  quia  eo  decernitur,  qua  ratione  et  conditione 
Deus  peccatores  saluti  destinet.  Enunciatur  autem  hoc  decretum 
Dei  hac  formula  :  Deus  decrevit  salvai'c  credentes,  non  quasi  cre- 
dentes  quidam  re  ipsa  jam  sint,  qui  objiciantur  Deo  salvare  volenti, 
sive  prsedestinanti ;  nihil  minus ;  sed,  ut  quid  in  iis,  circa  quos 
Deus  prsedestinans  versatur,  requiratur,  ista  enunciatione  clare 
significetur.    Tantundem  enim  valet  atqui  si  diceres,  Deus  decrevit 

homines  salvare  sub   conditione  fidei Etiamsi  hujusmodi 

praedestinatio  non  sit  praedestinatio  certarum  personarum,  est  tamen 
omnium  hominum  praedestinatio,  si  modo  credant  et  m  vu'tute 
praedestinatio  certarum  personarum,  q\ue  et  quando  credunt."* 

1  Apohffia  pro  Confesdone  Remonstrantiicm,  p.  162. 

2  Theoiogia,  iv.  xii.  8;  p.  352. 

3  Confessio  Rtmonslrnntiiim,  xvii.  8;  p.  89. 

*  Apologia  pro  Confessione  Remonstrctndum,  p.  102. 


§  7.]  WESLEYAN   ARMINIANISM.  329 

§  7.  Wesleyan  Armintanism. 
The  Arminian  system  received  such  modifications  in  the  hands 
of  Wesley  and  his  associates  and  followers,  that  they  give  it  the 
designation  of  Evangelical  Arminianism,  and  claim  for  it  original- 
ity and  completeness.  It  differs  from  the  system  of  the  Remon- 
strants, — 

1.  In  admitting  that  man  since  the  fall  is  in  a  state  of  absolute 
or  entire  pollution  and  depravit3\  Original  sin  is  not  a  mere 
physical  deterioration  of  our  nature,  but  entire  moral  depravity. 

2.  In  denying  that  men  in  this  state  of  nature  have  any  power 
to  cooperate  with  the  grace  of  God.  The  advocates  of  this  system 
regard  this  doctrine  of  natural  ability,  or  the  ability  of  the  natural 
man  to  cooperate  with  the  grace  of  God  as  Semi-pelagian,  and  the 
doctrine  that  men  have  the  power  by  nature  perfectly  to  keep  the 
commandments  of  God,  as  pure  Pelagianism.^ 

8.  In  asserting  that  the  guilt  brought  upon  all  men  by  the  sin 
of  Adam  is  removed  by  the  justification  which  has  come  upon  all 
men  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 

4.  That  the  ability  of  man  even  to  cooperate  with  the  Spirit  of 
God,  is  due  not  to  anything  belonging  to  his  natural  state  as  fallen, 
but  to  the  universal  influence  of  the  redemption  of  Christ.  Every 
infant,  therefore,  comes  into  the  world  free  from  condemnation  on 
the  ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ.,  and  with  a  seed  of  divine 
grace,  or  a  principle  of  a  new  life  implanted  in  his  heart.  "  That 
by  the  offence  of  one,"  says  Wesley,'-^  "judgment  came  upon  all 
men  (all  born  into  the  world)  unto  condemnation,  is  an  undoubted 
truth,  and  affects  every  infant,  as  well  as  every  adult  person.  But 
it  is  equally  true,  that  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift 
came  upon  all  men  (all  born  into  the  world  —  infants  and  adults) 
unto  justification."  And  Fletcher,^  says,  "  As  Adam  brought  a 
general  condemnation  and  a  universal  seed  of  death  upon  all  in- 
fants, so  Christ  brings  upon  them  a  general  justification  and  a  uni- 
versal seed  of  life."  "  Every  human  being,"  says  Warren,  "  has 
a  measure  of  grace  (unless  he  has  cast  it  away),  and  those  who 
faithfully  use  this  gracious  gift,  will  be  accepted  of  God  in  the  day 
of  judgment,  whether  Jew  or  Greek,  Christian  or  Heathen.  In 
virtue  of  the  mediation  of  Jesus  Christ,  between  God  and  our  fallen 
race,  all  men  since  the  promise  Gen.  iii.  15,  are  under  an  economy 
of  grace,  and  the  only  difference  between  them  as  subjects  of  the 

1  W.  F.  Warren,  System.  Theoloffie,  Erste  Lieferung,  Hamburg,  p.  145. 

2  Wwks,  vii.  p.  97.  8   Works,  i.  pp.  284,  285. 


330      PART  m.   Ch.  I  — the  plajt  of  salvation. 

moral  government  of  God,  is  that  while  all  have  grace  and  light 
enough  to  attain  salvation,  some,  over  and  above  this,  have  more 
and  others  less."^  Wesley  says,  "  No  man  living  is  without  some 
preventing  grace,  and  every  degree  of  grace  is  a  degree  of  life." 
And  in  another  place,  "  I  assert  that  there  is  a  measure  of  free 
will  supernaturally  restored  to  every  man,  together  with  that  super- 
natural light  which  enlightens  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 
world."  2 

According  to  this  view  of  the  plan  of  God,  he  decreed  or  pur- 
posed, (1.)  To  permit  the  fall  of  man.  (2.)  To  send  his  Son  to 
make  a  full  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  (3.)  On 
the  ground  of  that  satisfaction  to  remit  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first 
transgression  and  of  original  sin,  and  to  impart  such  a  measure  of 
grace  and  light  to  all  and  every  man  as  to  enable  all  to  attain  eter- 
nal life.  (4.)  Those  who  duly  improve  that  grace,  and  persevere 
to  the  end,  are  ordained  to  be  saved  :  God  purposes  from  eternity, 
to  save  those  whom  He  foresees  Avill  thus  persevere  in  faith  and 
holy  living. 

It  is  plain  that  the  main  point  of  difference  between  the  later 
Lutheran,  the  Arminian,  and  the  Wesleyan  schemes,  and  that  of 
Augustinians  is,  that  according  to  the  latter,  God,  and  according 
to  the  former,  man,  determines  who  are  to  be  saved.  Augustine 
taught  that  out  of  the  fallen  family  of  men,  all  of  whom  might 
have  been  justly  left  to  perish  in  their  apostasy,  God,  out  of  his 
mere  good  mercy,  elected  some  to  everlasting  life,  sent  his  Son  for 
their  redemption,  and  gives  to  them  the  Holy  Spirit  to  secure  their 
repentance,  faith,  and  holy  living  unto  the  end.  "  Cur  autem  non 
omnibus  detur  [donum  fidei],  fidelem  movere  non  debet,  qui  credit 
ex  uno  omnes  isse  in  condemnationem,  sine  dubio  justissimam  :  ita 
ut  nulla  Dei  esset  justa  reprehensio,  etiamsi  nullus  inde  liberaretur. 
Unde  constat,  magnam  esse  gratiam,  quod  plurimi  liberantur."  ^ 
It  is  God,  therefore,  and  not  man,  who  determines  who  are  to  be 
saved.  Although  this  may  be  said  to  be  the  turning  point  between 
these  great  systems,  which  have  divided  the  Church  in  all  ages, 
yet  that  point  of  necessity  involves  all  the  other  matters  of  differ- 
ence ;  namely,  the  nature  of  original  sin  ;  the  motive  of  God  in 
providing  redemption  ;  the  nature  and  design  of  the  work  of  Christ; 
and  the  nature  of  divine  grace,  or  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Thus,  in  a  great  measure,  the  whole  system  of  theology,-  and  of 

1  Warren,  p.  146. 

2  Works,  vii.  p.  97 ;  vi.  p  42.     Fletcher,  i.  p.  137,  ff.  etc. 

8  Augustine,  De  Praedestinatione  Sanctorum,  viii.  16 ;    Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  vol.  x 
p.  1361,  c. 


§8.]  THE   AUGUSTINIAN   SCHEME.  331 

necessity  the  character  of  our  religion,  depend  upon  the  view  taken 
of  this  particular  question.  It  is,  therefore,  a  question  of  the  high- 
est practical  importance,  and  not  a  matter  of  idle  speculation. 

§  8.   The  Augustinian  Scheme. 

Preliminary  Reniarhs. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  question  is  not  which  view  of 
the  plan  of  God  is  the  freest  from  difficulties,  the  most  agreeable  to 
our  natural  feelings,  and  therefore  the  most  plausible  to  the  human 
mind.  It  may  be  admitted  that  it  would  appear  to  us  more  con- 
sistent with  the  character  of  God  that  provision  should  be  made 
for  the  salvation  of  all  men,  and  that  sufficient  knowledge  and 
grace  should  be  granted  to  every  human  being  to  secure  his  salva- 
tion. So  it  would  be  more  consistent  with  the  natural  understand- 
ing and  feelings,  if  like  provision  had  been  made  for  the  fallen 
angels ;  or  if  God  had  prevented  the  entrance  of  sin  and  misery 
into  the  universe ;  or  if,  when  they  had  entered,  He  had  provided 
for  their  ultimate  elimination  from  the  system,  so  that  all  rational 
creatures  should  be  perfectly  holy  and  happy  for  eternity.  There 
would  be  no  end  to  such  plans  if  each  one  were  at  liberty  to  con- 
struct a  scheme  of  divine  operation  according  to  his  own  views  of 
what  would  be  wisest  and  best.  We  are  shut  up  to  facts :  the 
facts  of  providence,  of  the  Bible,  and  of  religious  experience. 
These  facts  must  determine  our  theory.  We  cannot  say  that  the 
goodness  of  God  forbids  the  permission  of  sin  and  misery,  if  sin 
and  misery  actually  exist.  We  cannot  say  that  justice  requires 
that  all  rational  creatures  should  be  treated  alike,  have  the  same 
advantages,  and  the  same  opportunity  to  secure  knowledge,  holi- 
ness, and  happiness,  if,  under  the  government  of  a  God  of  infinite 
justice,  the  greatest  disparity  actually  exists.  Among  all  Chris- 
tians certain  principles  are  admitted,  according  to  which  the  facts 
of  history  and  of  the  Scriptures  must  be  interpreted. 

1.  It  is  admitted  that  God  reigns  ;  that  his  providence  extends 
to  all  events  great  and  small,  so  that  nothing  does  or  can  occur 
contrary  to  his  will,  or  which  He  does  not  either  effect  by  his  own 
power,  or  permit  to  be  done  by  other  agents.  This  is  a  truth  of 
natural  religion  as  well  as  of  revelation.  It  is  (practically)  uni- 
versally-recognized. The  prayers  and  thanksgivings  which  men 
by  a  law  of  their  nature  address  to  God,  assume  that  He  controls 
all  events.  War,  pestilence,  and  famine,  are  deprecated  as  mani- 
festations of  his  displeasure.     To  Him  all  men  turn  for  deliverance 


332         PART  III.    Ch.  L  — the  plan  OF  SALVATION. 

from  tliese  evils.  Peace,  health,  and  plenty,  are  universally  rec- 
ognized as  his  gifts.  This  truth  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  religion, 
and  cannot  be  questioned  by  any  Theist,  much  less  by  any  Chris- 
tian. 

2.  No  less  clear  and  universally  admitted  is  the  principle  that 
God  can  control  the  free  acts  of  rational  creatures  without  destroy- 
ing either  their  liberty  or  their  responsibility.  Men  universally 
pray  for  deliverance  from  the  wrath  of  their  enemies,  that  their  en- 
mity may  be  turned  aside,  or  that  the  state  of  their  minds  may  be 
changed.  All  Christians  pray  that  God  would  change  the  hearts 
of  men,  give  them  repentance  and  faith,  and  so  control  their  acts 
that  his  glory  and  the  good  of  others  may  be  promoted.  This 
again  is  one  of  those  simple,  profound,  and  far-reaching  truths, 
which  men  take  for  granted,  and  on  which  they  act  and  cannot 
avoid  acting,  whatever  may  be  the  doubts  of  philosophers,  or  the 
speculative  difficulties  with  which  such  truths  are  attended. 

3.  All  Christians  admit  that  God  has  a  plan  or  purpose  in  the 
government  of  the  world.  There  is  an  end  to  be  accomplished. 
It  is  inconceivable  that  an  infinitely  wise  Being  should  create,  sus- 
tain, and  control  the  universe,  without  contemplating  any  end  to 
be  attained  by  this  wonderful  manifestation  of  his  power  and  re- 
sources. The  Bible,  therefore,  teaches  us  that  God  works  all 
things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  And  this  truth  is  incor- 
porated in  all  the  systems  of  faith  adopted  among  Christians,  and 
is  assumed  in  all  religious  worship  and  experience. 

4.  It  is  a  necessary  corollary  from  the  foregoing  principles  that 
the  facts  of  history  are  the  interpretation  of  the  eternal  purposes 
of  God.  Whatever  actually  occurs  entered  into  his  purpose.  We 
can,  therefore,  learn  the  design  or  intention  of  God  from  the 
evolution  or  development  of  his  plan  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
and  of  every  individual  man.  Whatever  occurs.  He  for  wise 
reasons  permits  to  occur.  He  can  prevent  whatever  He  sees  fit 
to  prevent.  If,  therefore,  sin  occurs,  it  was  God's  design  that  it 
should  occur.  If  misery  follows  in  the  train  of  sin,  such  was 
God's  purpose.  If  some  men  only  are  saved,  while  others  per- 
ish, such  must  have  entered  into  the  all  comprehending  purpose 
of  God.  It  is  not  possible  for  any  finite  mind  to  comprehend  the 
designs  of  God,  or  to  see  the  reasons  of  his  dispensations.  But  we 
cannot,  on  that  account,  deny  that  He  governs  all  things,  or  that 
He  rules  according  to  the  connsel  of  his  own  will. 

The  Auo-iistinian  svstem  of  doctrine  is  nothiiiij;  more-  than  the 
application  of  these  general  and  almost  univeisully  recognized  prin- 
ciples to  the  special  case  of  the  salvat'on  of  man. 


§  8.]  THE   AUGUSTINIAN   SCHEME.  •  333 

Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 

The  Augustinian  scheme  includes  the  following  points :  (1.) 
That  the  glory  of  God,  or  the  manifestation  of  his  perfections,  is 
the  highest  and  ultimate  end  of  all  tilings.  (2.)  For  that  end 
God  purposed  the  creation  of  the  universe,  and  the  whole  plan  of 
providence  and  redemption.  (3.)  Tiiat  He  placed  man  in  a  state 
of  probation,  making  Adam,  their  first  parent,  their  head  and  rep- 
resentative. (4.)  That  the  fall  of  Adam  brought  all  his  posterity 
into  a  state  of  condemnation,  sin,  and  misery,  from  which  they  are 
utterly  unable  to  deliver  tiiemselves.  (5.)  From  the  mass  of 
fallen  men  God  elected  a  number  innumerable  to  eternal  life,  and 
left  the  rest  of  mankind  to  the  just  recompense  of  their  sins. 
(6.)  That  the  ground  of  this  election  is  not  the  foresight  of  any- 
thing in  the  one  class  to  distinguish  them  favourably  from  the  mem- 
bers of  the  other  plass,  but  the  good  pleasure  of  God.  (7.)  That 
for  the  salvation  of  those  thus  chosen  to  eternal  life,  God  gave  his 
own  Son,  to  become  man,  aiid  to  obey  and  suffer  for  his  people, 
thus  making  a  full  satisfaction  for  sin  and  bringing  in  everlasting 
righteousness,  rendering  the  ultimate  salvation  of  the  elect  abso- 
lutely certain.  (8.)  That  while  tiie  Holy  Spirit,  in  his  common 
operations,  is  present  with  every  man,  so  long  as  he  lives,  restrain- 
ing evil  and  excitinor  ffood,  his  certainlv  efficacious  and  saving 
power  is  exercised  only  in  behalf  of  the  elect.  (9.)  That  all  those 
whom  God  has  thus  chosen  to  life,  and  for  whom  Christ  specially 
gave  Himself  in  the  covenant  of  redemption,  shall  certainly  (un- 
less they  die  in  infancy),  be  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth, 
to  the  exercise  of  faith,  and  to  perseverance  in  holy  living  unto 
the  end. 

Such  is  the  great  scheme  of  doctrine  known  in  history  as  the 
Pauline,  Augustinian,  or  Calvinistic,  taught,  as  We  believe,  in  the 
Scriptures,  developed  by  Augustine,  formally  sanctioned  by  the 
Latin  Church,  adhered  to  by  the  witnesses  of  the  truth  during 
the  Middle  Ages,  repudiated  by  the  Church  of  Rome  in  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  revived  in  that  Churcii  by  the  Jansenists,  adopted  by 
all  the  Reformers,  incorporated  in  the  creeds  of  the  Protestant 
Churches  of  Switzerland,  of  the  Palatinate,  of  France,  Holland, 
England,  and  Scotland,  and  unfolded  in  the  Standards  framed  by 
the  Westminster  Assembly,  the  common  representative  of  Presby- 
terians in  Europe  and  America. 

It  is  a  historical  fact  that  this  scheme  of  doctrine  has  been  the 
moving  power  in  the  Church;  that  largely  to  it  are  to  be  referred 


334    PART  III.  Ch.  I— the  plan  OF  SALVATION. 

the  intellectual  vigour  and  spiritual  life  of  the  heroes  and  confes- 
sors who  have  been  raised  up  in  the  course  of  ages ;  that  it  has 
been  the  fruitful  source  of  good  works,  of  civil  and  religious  lib- 
erty, and  of  human  progress.  Its  truth  may  be  evinced  from 
many  different  sources. 

Proof  of  the  Doctrine. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  a  simple,  harmonious,  self-consistent 
scheme.  It  supposes  no  conflicting  purposes  in  the  divine  mind ; 
no  willing  first  one  thing,  and  then  another;  no  purposing  ends 
which  are  never  accomplished  ;  and  no  assertion  of  principles  in 
conflict  with  others  which  cannot  be  denied.  All  the  parts  of  this 
vast  ])lan  admit  of  being  reduced  to  one  comprehensive  purpose  as 
it  was  hid  for  ages  in  the  divine  mind.  The  purpose  to  create,  to 
permit  the  fall,  to  elect  some  to  everlasting  life,  while  others  are 
left,  to  send  his  Son  to  redeem  his  people,  and  to  give  the  Spirit 
to  apply  that  redemption,  are  purposes  which  harmonize  one  with 
all  the  others,  and  form  one  consistent  plan.  The  parts  of  this 
scheme  are  not  only  harmonious,  but  they  are  also  connected  in 
such  a  way  that  the  one  involves  the  others,  so  that  if  one  be 
proved  it  involves  the  truth  of  all  the  rest.  If  Christ  was  given 
for  the  redemption  of  his  people,  then  their  redemption  is  rendered 
certain,  and  then  the  operations  of  the  Spirit  must,  in  their  case, 
be  certainly  efficacious  ;  and  if  such  be  the  design  of  the  work 
of  Clirist,  and  the  nature  of  the  Spirit's  influence,  then  those 
who  are  the  objects  of  the  one,  and  the  subjects  of  the  other,  must 
persevere  in  holiness  unto  the  end.  Or  if  we  begin  with  any 
other  of  the  principles  aforesaid,  the  same  result  follows.  If  it 
be  proved  or  conceded  that  the  fiiU  brought  mankind  into  an 
estate  of  helpless  sin  and  misery,  then  it  follows  that  salvation 
must  be  of  grace  ;  that  it  is  of  God  and  not  of  us,  that  we  are 
in  Christ ;  that  vocation  is  effectual  ;  that  election  is  of  the  good 
pleasure  of  God  ;  that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  renders  certain  the 
salvation  of  his  people  ;  and  that  they  cannot  fatally  fall  away 
from  God.  So  of  all  the  rest.  Admit  that  the  death  of  Christ 
renders  certain  the  salvation  of  his  people,  and  all  the  rest  follows. 
Admit  that  election  is  not  of  works,  and  the  whole  plan  must 
be  admitted  as  true.  Admit  that  nothing  happens  contrary  to 
God's  purposes,  then  again  the  whole  Augustinian  scheme  must  be 
admitted.  There  can  scarcely  be  a  clearer  proof  that  we  under- 
stand a  complicated  machine  than  that  we  can  put  together  its  sev- 
eral parts,  so  that  each  exactly  fits  its  place  ;  no  one  admitting  of 


§8.]  THE  AUGUSTINIAN  SCHEME.  335 

being  transferred  or  substituted  for  another  ;  and  the  whole  being 
complete  and  unimpeded  in  its  action.  Such  is  the  order  of  God's 
working,  that  if  you  give  a  naturalist  a  single  bone,  he  can  con- 
struct the  whole  skeleton  of  which  it  is  a  part ;  and  such  is  the 
order  of  his  plan  of  redemption,  that  if  one  of  the  great  truths 
which  it  includes  be  admitted,  all  the  rest  must  be  accepted.  This 
is  the  first  great  argument  in  suppoi't  of  the  Pauline  or  Augustin- 
ian  scheme  of  doctrine. 

Argument  from  the  Facts  of  Providence. 

In  the  second  place,  this  scheme  alone  is  consistent  with  the 
facts  of  God's  providence.  Obvious  as  the  truth  is,  it  needs  to  be 
constantly  repeated,  that  it  is  useless  to  contend  against  facts.  If 
a  thing  is,  it  is  vain  to  ignore  it,  or  to  deny  its  significance.  We 
must  conform  our  theories  to  facts,  and  not  make  tiie  facts  conform 
to  our  theories.  That  view  of  divine  truth,  therefore,  is  correct 
which  accords  with  the  facts  of  God's  providence  ;  and  that  view 
of  doctrine  must  be  false  which  conflicts  wirfi  those  facts.  An- 
other principle  no  less  plain,  and  no  less  apt  to  be  forgotten,  is  the 
one  assumed  above  as  admitted  by  all  Christians,  namely,  that 
God  has  a  plan  and  that  the  events  of  his  providence  correspond 
with  that  plan.  In  other  words,  that  whatever  happens,  God  in- 
tended should  happen  ;  that  to  Him  nothing  can  be  unexpected, 
and  nothing  contrary  to  his  purposes.  If  this  be  so,  then  we  can 
learn  Avith  certainty  what  God's  plan  is,  what  He  intended  to  do 
or  to  permit,  from  what  actually  comes  to  pass.  If  one  portion  of 
the  inhabitants  of  a  given  country  die  in  infancy,  and  another  por- 
tion live  to  mature  age  ;  such  was,  for  wise  reasons,  the  purpose  of 
God.  If  some  are  prosperous,  and  others  miserable,  such  also  is 
in  accordance  with  his  holy  will.  If  one  season  is  abundant,  an- 
other the  reverse,  it  is  so  in  virtue  of  his  appointment.  This  is  a 
dictate  even  of  natural  religion.  As  much  as  this  even  the  heathen 
believe. 

It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  if  these  simple  principles  be 
granted,  the  truth  of  the  Augustinian  scheme  must  be  admitted. 
It  is  a  fact  that  God  created  man  ;  it  is  a  fact  that  the  fall  of  Adam 
involved  our  whole  race  in  sin  and  misery  ;  it  is  a  fact  that  of  this 
fallen  family,  some  are  saved  and  others  perish  ;  it  is  a  fact  that 
the  salvation  of  those  who  actually  attain  eternal  life,  is  secured 
by  the  mediation  of  Christ,  luid  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
These  are  })rovidential  facts  admitted  by  all  Christians.  All  that 
Augustiniaiiism   teaches   is,  that  these  facts  were  not  unexpected 


336         PART  III.     Ch.   L  — the   plan   OF    SALTATION. 

by  the  divine  mind,  but  that  God  foreknew  they  would  occur,  and 
intended  that  they  should  come  to  pass.  This  is  all.  What  actu- 
ally does  happen,  God  intended  should  happen.  Although  his  pur- 
poses or  intentions  cannot  fail,  He  uses  no  influence  to  secure  their 
accomplishment,  which  is  incompatible  with  the  perfect  liberty  and 
entire  responsibility  of  rational  creatures.  As  God  is  infinite  in 
power  and  wisdom,  He  can  control  all  events,  and  therefore  the 
course  of  events  must  be  in  accordance  with  his  will,  because  He 
can  mould  or  direct  that  course  at  pleasure.  It  is,  therefore,  evi- 
dent, first,  that  events  must  be  the  interpretation  of  his  purposes, 
i.  e.,  of  what  He  intends  shall  happen  ;  and  secondly,  that  no 
objection  can  bear  against  the  purpose  or  decrees  of  God,  which 
does  not  bear  equally  against  his  providence.  If  it  be  right  that 
God  should  permit  an  event  to  happen,  it  must  be  right  that  He 
should  purpose  to  permit  it,  i.  e.,  that  He  should  decree  its  occur- 
rence. We  may  suppose  the  Deistic  or  Rationalistic  view  of  God's 
relation  to  the  world  to  be  true  ;  that  God  created  men,  and  left 
them  without  any  providential  guidance,  or  any  supernatural  influ- 
'ence,  to  the  unrestrained  exercise  of  their  own  faculties,  and  to  the 
operation  of  the  laws  of  nature  and  of  society.  If  this  were  so, 
a  certain  course  of  events  in  regular  succession,  and  in  every  vari- 
ety of  combination,  would  as  a  matter  of  fact,  actually  occur.  In 
this  case  there  could  be  no  pretence  that  God  was  responsible  for 
the  issue.  He  had  created  man,  endowed  him  with  all  the  facul- 
ties, and  surrounded  him  by  all  the  circumstances  necessary  for  his 
highest  welfare.  If  he  chose  to  abuse  his  faculties,  and  neglect 
his  opportunities,  it  would  be  his  own  fault.  He  could  bring  no 
just  complaint  against  his  maker.  We  may  further  suppose  that 
God,  overlooking  and  foreseeing  how  men  left  to  themselves  would 
act,  and  what  would  be  the  issue  of  a  universe  conducted  on  this 
plan,  should  determine,  for  wise  reasons,  that  it  should  become 
actual ;  that  just  such  a  world  and  just  such  a  series  of  events 
should  really  occur.  Would  this  be  wrong  ?  Or,  would  it  make 
any  difference,  if  God's  purpose  as  to  the  futurition  of  such  a  world, 
instead  o? following  the  foresight  of  it,  should  precede  it?  In 
either  case  God  would  purpose  precisely  the  same  world,  and  the 
same  course  of  events.  Augustinianism  supposes  that  God  for  his 
own  glory,  and  therefore  for  the  highest  and  most  beneficent  of  all 
ends,  did  purpose  such  a  world  and  such  a  series  of  events  as 
would  have  occurred  on  the  Deistical  hypothesis,  with  two  impor- 
tant exceptions.  First,  He  interposes  to  restrain  and  guide  the 
wickedness  of  men  so  as  to  prevent  its  producing  unmitigated  evil, 


§8.]  THE   AUGUSTINIAN   SCHEME.  337 

and  to  cause  it  to  minister  to  the  production  of  good.  And  sec- 
ondly, He  intervenes  by  his  providence,  and  by  the  work  of  Christ 
and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  save  innumerable  souls  from  the  deluge 
of  destruction.  The  Augustinian  system,  therefore,  is  nothing 
but  the  assumption  that  God  intended  in  eternity  what  He  actually 
does  in  time.  That  system,  therefore,  is  in  accordance  with  all  the 
facts  of  divine  providence,  and  thus  is  founded  on  an  immovable 
basis. 

Sovereignty  of  God  in  the  Dispensations  of  his  Providence. 
There  is,  however,  another  view  which  must  be  taken  of  tliis  sub- 
ject. Augustinianism  is  founded  on  the  assumption  of  the  sovereignty 
of  God.  It  supposes  that  it  belongs  to  Him,  in  virtue  of  his  own 
perfection,  in  virtue  of  his  relation  to  the  universe  as  its  creator  and 
preserver,  and  of  his  relation  to  the  world  of  sinners  as  their  ruler 
and  judge,  to  deal  with  them  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure  ; 
that  He  can  rightfully  pardon  some  and  condemn  others ;  can 
rightfully  give  his  saving  grace  to  one  and  not  to  another;  and, 
therefore,  that  it  is  of  Him,  and  not  of  man,  that  one  and  not  another 
is  made  a  partaker  of  eternal  life.  On  the  other  hand,  all  anti- 
Augustinian  systems  assume  that  God  is  bound  to  provide  salvation 
for  all ;  to  give  sufficient  grace  to  all ;  and  to  leave  the  question  of 
salvation  and  perdition  to  be  determined  by  each  man  for  himself. 
We  are  not  condemned  criminals  of  whom  the  sovereign  may  right- 
fully pardon  some  and  not  others ;  but  rational  creatures,  having  all 
an  equal  and  valid  claim  on  our  Maker  to  receive  all  that  Is  necessary 
for  our  salvation.  The  question  is  not  which  of  these  theories  is 
the  more  agreeable,  but  which  is  true.  And  to  decide  that  question 
one  method  is  to  ascertain  which  accords  best  with  providential 
facts.  Does  God  in  his  providential  dealings  with  men  act  on  the 
principles  of  sovereignty,  distributing  his  favours  according  to  the 
good  pleasure  of  his  will  ;  or  on  the  principle  of  impartial  justice, 
dealing  with  all  men  alike  ?  This  question  admits  of  but  one 
answer.  We  may  make  as  little  as  we  please  of  mere  external 
circumstances,  and  magnify  as  much  as  we  can  the  compensations 
of  providence  which  tend  to  equalize  the  condition  of  men.  We 
may  press  to  the  extreme  the  principle  that  much  shall  be  required 
of  those  who  receive  much,  and  less  of  those  who  receive  less. 
Notwithstanding  these  qualifications  and  limitations,  the  fact  is 
patent  that  the  greatest  inequalities  do  exist  among  men ;  that  God 
deals  far  more  favourably  with  some  than  with  others  ;  that  He 
distributes  his  providential  blessings,  which  include  not  only  tem- 

voL.  II.  22 


838   PART  m.   Ch.  I.  — the  plan  OF  SALVATION. 

poral  good  but  also  religious  adv^antages  and  op)3ortunities,  as  an 
absolute  sovereign  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure,  and  not  as 
an  impartial  judge.     The  time  for  judgment  is  not  yet. 

This  sovereignty  of  God  in  the  dispensation  of  his  providence  is 
evinced  in  his  dealings  both  with  nations  and  with  individuals.  It 
cannot  be  believed  that  the  lot  of  the  Laplanders  is  as  favourable 
as  that  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  temperate  zone  ;  that  the  Hottentots 
are  in  as  desirable  a  position  as  Europeans  ;  that  the  people  of 
Tartary  are  as  well  off  as  those  of  the  United  States.  The  inequality 
is  too  glaring  to  be  denied ;  nor  can  it  be  doubted  that  the  rule  which 
God  adopts  in  determining  the  lot  of  nations  is  his  own  good  pleasure, 
and  not  the  relative  claims  of  the  people  affected  by  his  providence. 
The  same  fact  is  no  less  obvious  as  concerns  individuals.  Some 
are  happ}',  others  are  miserable.  Some  have  uninterrupted  health  ; 
others  are  the  victims  of  disease  and  suffering.  Some  have  all  their 
faculties,  others  are  born  blind  or  deaf  Some  are  rich,  others  sunk 
in  the  misery  and  degradation  of  abject  poverty.  Some  are  born 
in  the  midst  of  civilized  society  and  in  the  bosom  of  virtuous  families, 
others  are  from  the  beginning  of  their  being  surrounded  by  vice  and 
wretchedness.  These  ai'e  facts  which  cannot  be  denied.  Nor  can 
it  be  denied  that  the  lot  of  each  individual  is  determined  by  the 
sovereign  pleasure  of  God. 

The  same  principle  is  carried  out  with  regard  to  the  communica- 
tion of  religious  knowledge  and  advantages.  God  chose  the  Jews 
from  among  all  the  families  of  the  earth  to  be  the  recipients  of  his 
oracles  and  of  the  divinely  instituted  ordinances  of  religion.  The 
rest  of  the  world  was  left  for  centuries  in  utter  darkness.  We  may 
say  that  it  will  be  more  tolerable  In  the  judgment  for  the  heathen 
than  for  the  unfaithful  Jews  ;  and  that  God  did  not  leave  even  the 
Gentiles  without  a  witness.  All  this  may  be  admitted,  and  yet  what 
the  Apostle  says  stands  true :  The  advantages  of  the  Jews  were  great 
every  way.  It  would  be  infatuation  and  Ingratitude  for  the  Inhab- 
itants of  Christendom  not  to  recognize  their  position  as  unspeakably 
more  desirable  than  that  of  Pagans.  No  American  Christian  can 
persuade  himself  that  it  would  have  been  as  well  had  he  been  born 
In  Africa  ;  nor  can  he  give  any  answer  to  the  question,  Why  was 
I  born  here  and  not  there  ?  other  than,  "  Even  so.  Father,  for  so 
it  seemed  good  in  thy  sIo;ht." 

It  is  therefore  vain  to  adopt  a  theory  which  does  not  accord  with 
these  facts.  It  is  vain  for  us  to  deny  that  God  is  a  sovereign  In  the 
distribution  of  his  favours  if  in  his  providence  it  is  undeniable 
that  He  acts  as  a  sovereiirn.     Augustinlanism  accords  with  these 


§8.]  THE   AUGUSTINIAN   SCHEME.  339 

facts  of  providence,  and  therefore  must  be  true.  It  only  assumes 
that  God  acts  in  the  dispensation  of  his  grace  precisely  as  He 
acts  in  the  distribution  of  his  other  favours ;  and  all  anti- 
Augustinian  systems  which  are  founded  on  the  principle  that  this 
sovereignty  of  God  is  inconsistent  with  his  justice  and  his  parental 
relation  to  the  children  of  men  are  in  obvious  conflict  with  the  facts 
of  his  providence. 

Argument  from  the  Facts  of  Scripture, 

The  third  source  of  proof  on  this  subject  is  found  in  the  facts  of 
the  Bible,  or  in  the  truths  therein  plainly  revealed.  Augustinian- 
ism  is  the  only  system  consistent  with  those  facts  or  truths. 

1.  This  appears  first  from  the  clear  revelation  which  the  Scrip- 
tures make  of  God  as  infinitely  exalted  above  all  his  creatures,  and 
as  the  final  end  as  well  as  the  source  of  all  things.  It  is  because 
He  is  infinitely  great  and  good  that  his  glory  is  the  end  of  all 
things  ;  and  his  good  pleasure  the  highest  reason  for  whatever 
comes  to  pass.  What  is  man  that  he  should  contend  with  God  ; 
or  presume  that  his  interests  rather  than  God's  glory  should  be 
made  the  final  end  ?  The  Scriptures  not  only  assert  the  absolute 
sovereignty  of  God,  but  they  teach  that  it  is  founded,  first,  on  his 
infinite  superiority  to  all  creatures  ;  secondly,  upon  his  relation  to 
the  world  and  all  it  contains,  as  creator  and  preserver,  and  therefore 
absolute  proprietor  ;  and,  thirdly,  so  far  as  we  men  are  concerned, 
upon  our  entire  forfeiture  of  all  claim  on  his  mercy  by  our  ap  istasy. 
The  argument  is  that  Augustinianism  is  the  only  system  which 
accords  with  the  character  of  God  and  with  his  relation  to  his 
creatures  as  revealed  in  the  Bible. 

2.  It  is  a  fact  that  men  are  a  fallen  race;  that  by  their  alienation 
from  God  they  are  involved  in  a  state  of  guilt  and  pollution,  from 
which  they  cannot  deliver  themselves.  They  have  by  their  guilt 
forfeited  all  claim  on  God's  justice  ;  they  might  injustice  be  left  to 
perish  ;  and  by  their  depravity  they  have  I'endered  themselves 
unable  to  turn  unto  God,  or  to  do  anything  spiritually  good.  These 
are  facts  already  })roved.  The  sense  of  guilt  is  vaniversal  and 
indestructible.  All  sinners  know  the  righteous  judgment  of  God, 
that  they  are  worthy  of  death.  The  inability,  of  siiuiers  is  not  only 
clearly  and  repeatedly  asserted  in  the  Scriptures,  but  is  proved  by 
all  experience,  by  the  common  consciousness  of  men,  and,  of  course, 
by  the  consciousness  of  every  individual  man,  and  especially  of 
every  man  who  has  ever  been  or  who  is  truly  convinced  of  sin. 
But  if  men  are  thus  unable  to  change  their  own  hearts,  to  prepare 


L 


340   PART  m.  Ch.  l  — the  plan  of  salvation. 

themselves  for  that  change,  or  to  cooperate  in  its  production,  then 
all  those  systems  which  assume  the  ability  of  the  sinner  and  rest 
the  distinction  between  one  man  and  another  as  to  their  being  saved 
or  lost,  upon  the  use  made  of  that  ability,  must  be  false.  Tiiey  are 
contrary  to  facts.  They  are  inconsistent  with  what  every  man,  in 
the  depth  of  his  own  heart,  knows  to  be  true.  The  point  intended 
to  be  illustrated  when  the  Scriptures  compare  sinners  to  men  dead, 
and  even  to  dry  bones,  is  their  entire  helplessness.  In  this  respect 
they  are  all  alike.  Should  Christ  pass  through  a  graveyard,  and 
bid  one  here  and  another  there  to  come  forth,  the  reason  why  one 
was  restored  to  life  and  another  left  in  his  grave  could  be  sought 
only  in  his  good  pleasure.  From  the  nature  of  the  case  it  could 
not  be  found  in  the  dead  themselves.  Therefore  if  the  Scriptures, 
observation,  and  consciousness  teach  that  men  are  unable  to  restore 
themselves  to  spiritual  life,  their  being  quickened  must  be  referred 
to  the  good  pleasure  of  God. 

From  the  Work  of  the  Spirit. 

3.  This  is  confirmed  by  another  obvious  fact  or  truth  of  Scrip- 
ture. The  reo-eneration  of  the  human  heart ;  the  conversion  of  a 
sinner  to  God  is  the  work,  not  of  the  subject  of  that  change,  but  of 
the  Spirit  of  God.  This  is  plain,  first,  because  the  Bible  always 
attributes  it  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  We  are  said  to  be  born,  not  of  the 
will  of  man,  but  of  God ;  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit ;  to  be  the  subjects 
of  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  to  be  quickened,  or  raised  from 
the  dead  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  ;  the  dry  bones  live  only  when 
the  Spirit  blows  upon  them.  Such  is  the  representation  which 
pervades  the  Scriptures  from  beginning  to  end.  Secondly,  the 
Church,  therefore,  in  her  collective  capacity,  and  every  living 
member  of  that  Church  recognizes  this  truth  in  their  prayers  for 
the  renewing  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  the  most  ancient  and 
universally  recognized  ci*eeds  of  the  Cliurch  the  Spirit  is  designated 
as  TO  tfaoTTOLov,  the  life-giving  ;  the  author  of  all  spiritual  life.  The 
sovereignty  involved  in  this  regenerating  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  necessarily  implied  in  the  nature  of  the  power  exerted.  It 
is  declared  to  be  the  mighty  power  of  God  ;  the  exceeding  great- 
ness of  his  power ;  the  power  which  wrought  in  Christ  wiien  it 
raised  Him  from  the  dead.  It  is  represented  as  analogous  to  the 
power  by  which  the  blind  were  made  to  see,  the  deaf  to  hear,  and 
lepers  were  cleansed.  It  is  very  true  the  Spirit  illuminates,  teaches, 
convinces,  persuades,  and,  in  a  word,  governs  the  soul  according  to 
its  nature  as  a  rational  creature.     But  all  this  relates  to  what  is 


§8.]  THE   AUGUSTINIAN   SCHEME.  341 

done  in  the  case  of  the  children  of  God  after  their  regeneration. 
Imparting  spiritual  life  is  one  thing ;  sustaining,  controlling,  and 
cherishing  that  life  is  another.  If  the  Bible  teaches  that  regenera- 
tion, or  spiritual  resurrection,  is  the  woi'k  of  the  almighty  power  of 
God,  analogous  to  that  which  was  exercised  by  Christ  when  He 
said,  "  I  will,  be  thou  clean  ;  "  then  it  of  necessity  follows  that 
regeneration  is  an  act  of  sovereignty.  It  dejiends  on  God  the 
giver  of  life  and  not  on  those  spiritually  dead,  who  are  to  live,  and 
who  are  to  remain  in  their  sins.  The  intimate  conviction  of  the 
people  of  God  in  all  ages  has  been  and  is  that  regeneration,  or  the 
infusion  of  spiritual  life,  is  an  act  of  God's  power  exercised  accord- 
ing to  his  good  pleasure,  and  therefore  it  is  the  gift  for  which  the 
Church  specially  prays.  But  this  fact  involves  the  truth  of 
Augustinianism,  which  simply  teaches  that  the  reason  why  one 
man  is  regenerated  and  another  not,  and  consequently  one  saved 
and  another  not,  is  the  good  pleasure  of  God.  He  has  mercy  upon 
whom  He  will  have  mercy.  It  is  true  that  He  commands  all  men 
to  seek  his  grace,  and  promises  that  those  who  seek  shall  find.  But 
why  does  one  seek  and  another  not  ?  Why  is  one  impressed  with 
the  importance  of  salvation  while  others  remain  indifferent  ?  If  it 
be  true  that  not  only  regeneration,  but  all  right  thoughts  and  just 
purposes  come  from  God,  it  is  of  Him,  and  not  of  us,  that  we  seek 
and  find  his  favour. 

Election  is  to  Holiness. 

4.  Another  plainly  revealed  fact  is,  that  we  are  chosen  to  holi- 
ness ;  that  we  are  created  unto  good  works ;  in  other  words,  that 
all  good  in  us  is  the  fruit,  and,  therefore,  cannot  by  possibility  be 
the  ground  of  election.  In  Ejth.  i.  3—6,  the  Apostle  says:  "Blessed 
be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  blessed 
us  with  all  spiritual  blessings  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ:  according 
as  He  hath  chosen  us  in  Him,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
that  we  should  be  holy  and  without  blame  before  Him  in  love  : 
having  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of  children  by  Jesus 
Christ  to  himself,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will,  to  the 
praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace,  wherein  He  hath  made  us  accepted 
in  the  Beloved."  In  this  passage  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of 
election  is  stated  as  clearly  and  as  comprehensively  as  it  has 
ever  been  presented  in  human  language.  The  Apostle  teaches, 
(1.)  That  the  end  or  design  of  the  whole  scheme  of  redemption  is 
the  praise  of  the  glory  of  the  grace  of  God,  i.  e.,  to  exhibit  to  the 
admiration  of  intellio;ent  creatures  the  glorious  attribute  of  divine 


342    PART  III.  Ch.  I.— the  plan  OF  SALVATION. 

grace,  or  the  love  of  an  infinitely  holy  and  just  God  towards  guilty 
and  polhited  sinners.  (2.)  To  tliis  end,  of  his  mere  good  pleasure, 
He  predestinated  those  who  were  the  objects  of  this  love  to  the 
high  dignity  of  being  the  children  of  God.  (3.)  That,  to  prepare 
them  for  this  exalted  state,  He  chose  them,  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  to  be  holy  and  without  blame  in  love.  (4.)  That  in 
consequence  of  his  choice,  or  in  execution  of  this  purpose,  He 
confers  upon  them  all  spiritual  blessings,  regeneration,  faith,  repent- 
ance, and  the  indwelling  of  the  Spii'it.  It  is  utterly  incompatible 
with  this  fact  that  the  foresight  of  faith  and  repentance  should  be 
the  ground  of  election.  Men,  according  to  the  Apostle,  repent  and 
believe,  because  they  are  el'ected ;  God  has  chosen  them  to  be 
holy,  and  therefore  their  holiness  or  their  goodness  in  any  form  or 
measure  cannot  be  the  reason  why  He  chose  them.  In  like  manner 
the  Apostle  Peter  says,  believers  are  elect  "  unto  obedience  and 
sprinkhng  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ."  (1  Pet.  i.  2.)  Such  is 
the  clear  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  men  are  chosen  to  be  holy.  The 
fact  that  God  has  predestinated  them  to  salvation  is  the  reason  why 
they  are  brought  to  repentance  and  a  holy  life,  "  God,"  says  Paul 
to  the  Thessalonians  (2  Thess.  ii.  13),  "hath  from  the  beginning 
chosen  you  to  salvatif)n  through  (not  on  account  of)  sanctiHcation 
of  the  Si)irit  and  belief  of  the  truth."  "  We  give  thanks  to  God 
always  for  you  all,  making  mention  of  you  in  our  prayers  ;  remem- 
bering without  ceasing  your  work  of  faith,  and  labour  of  love,  and 
patience  of  hope  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  sight  of  God  and 
our  Father;  knowing,  brethren  beloved,  your  election  of  God." 
(1  Thess.  i.  2—4.)  He  recognizes  their  election  as  the  source  of 
their  faith  and  love. 

Fi'om  the  Gratuitous  Nature  of  Salvation. 

5.  Another  decisive  fact  is  that  salvation  is  of  grace.  The  two 
ideas  of  grace  and  works ;  of  gift  and  debt ;  of  undeserved  ftivour 
and  what  is  merited  ;  of  what  is  to  be  referred  to  the  good  pleasure 
of  the  giver,  and  what  to  the  character  or  state  of  the  receiver, 
are  antithetical.  The  one  excludes  the  other..  "  If  by  grace,  then 
is  it  no  more  of  works :  otherwise  grace  is  no  more  grace.  But  if 
it  be  of  works,  then  is  it  no  more  grace:  otherwise  work  is  no  more 
work."  Rom.  xi.  6.  Nothing  concerning  the  plan  of  salvation  is 
more  plainly  revealed,  or  more  strenuously  insisted  upon  than  its 
gratuitousness,  from  beginning  to  end.  "  Ye  are  saved  by  grace," 
is  engraved  upon  almost  every  page  of  the  Bible,  and  in  the  hearts 
of  all  believers.     (1.)  It  was  a  matter  of  grace  that  a  plan  of  salva- 


) 


§8.]  THE   AUGUSTINIAN   SCHEME.  343 

tion  was  devised  for  fallen  man  and  not  for  fallen  angels.  (2.)  It 
was  a  matter  of  grace  that  that  plan  was  revealed  to  some  portions 
of  our  race  and  not  to  otiiers.  (3.)  The  acceptance,  or  justifica- 
tion of  every  individual  heir  of  salvation  is  a  matter  of  grace. 
(4.)  The  work  of  sanctification  is  a  work  of  grace,  i.  e.,  a  work 
carried  on  by  the  unmerited,  supernatural  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  (5.)  It  is  a  matter  of  grace  that  of  those  who  hear  the 
gospel  some  accept  the  offered  mercy,  while  others  reject  it.  All 
these  points  are  so  clearly  taught  in  the  Bible  that  they  are  practi- 
cally acknowledged  by  all  Christians.  Although  denied  to  satisfy 
the  understanding,  they  are  concealed  by  the  heart,  as  is  evident 
from  the  prayers  and  praises  of  the  Church  in  all  ages  and  in  all 
its  divisions.  That  the  vocation  or  regeneration  of  the  believer  is 
of  grace,  ^'.  e.,  that  the  fact  of  his  vocation  is  to  be  referred  to  God, 
and  not  to  anything  in  himself  is  specially  insisted  upon  by  the 
Apostle  Paul  in  almost  all  his  epistles.  For  example,  in  1  Cor.  i. 
17—31.  It  had  been  objected  to  him  that  he  did  not  preach  "  with 
the  wisdom  of  words."  He  vindicated  himself  by  showing,  first, 
that  the  wisdom  of  men  had  not  availed  to  secure  the  saving  knowl- 
edge of  God  ;  and  secondly,  that  when  the  gospel  of  salvation  was 
revealed,  it  was  not  the  wise  who  accepted  it.  In  proof  of  this 
latter  point,  he  appealed  to  their  own  experience.  He  referred  to 
the  fact  that  of  their  number  God  had  not  chosen  the  wise,  the 
great,  or  the  noble  ;  but  the  foolish,  the  weak,  and  the  despised. 
God  had  done  this.  It  was  He  who  decided  who  should  be  brought 
to  accept  the  Gospel,  and  who  should  be  left  to  themselves.  He 
had  a  purpose  in  this,  and  that  purpose  was  that  those  who  glory 
should  glory  in  the  Lord,  {.  e.,  that  no  man  should  be  able  to  refer 
his  salvation  (the  fact  that  he  was  saved  while  another  was  not 
saved)  to  himself.  For,  adds  the  Apostle,  it  is  of  Him  that  we 
are  in  Christ  Jesus,  Our  union  with  Christ,  the  fact  that  we  are 
believers,  is  to  be  referred  to  Him,  and  not  to  ourselves. 

The  Apostle's  Argument  in  Romans  ix. 

This  also  is  the  purpose  of  the  Apostle  in  the  whole  of  the  ninth 
chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  He  had  asserted,  agreeably 
to  the  predictions  of  the  ancient  prophets,  that  the  Jews  as  a  nation 
were  to  be  cast  off,  and  the  blessings  of  the  true  religion  were  to 
be  extended  to  the  Gentiles.  To  establish  this  point,  he  first  shows 
that  God  was  not  bound  by  his  promise  to  Abraham  to  save  all  the 
natural  descendants  of  that  patriarch.  On  the  contrary,  that  it 
was  a  pi'erogative  which  God,  as  sovereign,  claimed  and  exercised, 


344         PART  lU.     Ch.  L  — the   plan   OF   SALVATION. 

to  have  mercy  on  whom  He  would,  and  to  reject  whom  He  would. 
He  chose  Isaac  and  not  Ishmael,  Jacob  and  not  Esau,  and,  in  tliat 
case,  to  show  that  the  choice  was  perfectly  sovereign,  it  was  an- 
nounced before  the  birth  of  the  children,  before  they  had  done  good 
or  evil.  Pharaoh  He  had  hardened.  He  left  him  to  himself  to  be 
a  monument  of  justice.  This  right,  which  God  both  claims  and 
exercises,  to  choose  whom  He  will  to  be  the  recipients  of  his  mercy, 
involves,  the  Apostle  teaches  us,  no  injustice.  It  is  a  right  of 
sovereignty  which  belongs  to  God  as  Creator  and  as  moral  Gov- 
ernor. No  one  had  a  right  to  complain  if,  for  the  manifestation  of 
his  mercy,  he  saved  some  of  the  guilty  family  of  men;  and  to  show 
his  justice,  allowed  others  to  bear  the  just  recompense  of  their  sins. 
On  these  principles  God,  as  Paul  tells  us,  dealt  with  the  Jews. 
The  nation  as  a  nation  was  cast  oflP,  but  a  remnant  was  saved. 
And  this  remnant  was  an  "  election  of  grace,"  i.  e.,  men  chosen 
gratuitously.  Paul  himself  was  an  illustration  of  this  election,  and 
a  proof  of  its  entirely  gratuitous  nature.  He  was  a  persecutor  and 
a  blasphemer,  and  while  in  the  very  exercise  of  his  malignant  op- 
position, was  suddenly  and  miraculously  converted.  Here,  if  in  no 
other  case,  the  election  was  of  grace.  There  was  nothing  in  Paul 
to  distinguish  him  favourably  from  other  unbelieving  Pharisees. 
It  could  not  be  the  foresight  of  his  faith  and  repentance  which  was 
the  ground  of  his  election,  because  he  was  brought  to  faith  and 
repentance  by  the  sovereign  and  irresistible  intervention  of  God. 
What,  however,  was  true  of  Paul  is  true  of  every  other  believer. 
Every  man  who  is  brought  to  Christ  is  so  brought  that  it  is  re- 
vealed to  his  own  consciousness,  and  openly  confessed  by  the 
mouth,  that  his  conversion  is  of  God  and  not  of  himself;  that  he 
is  a  monument  of  the  election  of  grace  ;  that  he,  at  least,  was  not 
chosen  because  of  his  deserts. 

Argument  from  Experience. 

The  whole  history  of  the  Church,  and  the  daily  observation  of 
Christians,  prove  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  the  dispensation  of 
saving  blessings,  for  which  Augustinians  contend.  It  is  true,  in- 
deed, first,  that  God  is  a  covenant  keeping  God,  and  that  his 
promise  is  to  his  people  and  to  their  seed  after  them  to  the  third 
and  fourth  generations.  It  is,  therefore,  true  that  his  grace  is  dis- 
pensed, although  not  exclusively,  yet  conspicuously,  in  the  line  of 
tlieir  descendants.  Secondly,  it  is  also  true  that  God  has  prom- 
ised his  blessing  to  attend  faithful  instruction.  He  commands  par- 
ents to  bring  up  their  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of 


§8.]  THE   AUGUSTINIAN   SCHEME.  345 

the  Lord  ;  and  promises  that  if  thus  trained  in  the  way  in  which 
they  should  go,  when  they  are  okl  they  will  not  depart  from  it.  But 
it  is  not  true  that  regeneration  is  the  product  of  culture.  Men  can- 
not be  educated  into  Christians,  as  they  may  be  trained  in  knowl- 
edge or  morals.  Conversion  is  not  the  result  of  the  development 
of  a  germ  of  spiritual  life  communicated  in  baptism  or  derived  by 
descent  from  pious  parents.  Everything  is  in  the  hands  of  God. 
As  Christ  when  on  earth  healed  one  and  another  by  a  word,  so  now 
by  his  Spirit,  He  quickens  whom  He  will.  This  fact  is  proved  by 
all  history.  Some  periods  of  the  Church  have  been  remarkable 
for  these  displays  of  his  powers,  while  others  have  passed  with  only 
here  and  there  a  manifestation  of  his  saving  grace.  Tn  the  Apos- 
tolic age  thousands  were  converted  ;  many  were  daily  added  to  the 
Church  of  such  as  were  to  be  saved.  Then  in  the  Augustinian 
age  there  was  a  wide  diffusion  of  the  savino;  influences  of  the 
Spirit.  Still  more  conspicuously  was  this  the  case  at  the  Reforma- 
tion. After  a  lono;  decline  in  Great  Britain  came  the  wonderful 
revival  of  true  religion  under  Wesley  and  Whitefield.  Contempo- 
raneously the  great  awakening  occurred  throughout  this  country. 
And  thus  from  time  to  time,  and  in  all  parts  of  the  Church,  we  see 
these  evidences  of  the  special  and  sovereign  interventions  of  God. 
The  sovereignty  of  these  dispensations  is  just  as  manifest  as  that 
displayed  in  the  seven  years  of  plenty  and  the  seven  years  of  dearth 
in  the  time  of  Moses.  Every  pastor,  almost  every  parent,  can  bear 
witness  to  the  same  truth.  They  pray  and  labour  long  apparently 
without  success;  and  then,  often  when  they  look  not  for  it,  comes 
the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit.  Changes  are  effected  in  the  state 
and  character  of  men,  which  no  man  can  produce  in  another ;  and 
which  no  man  can  effect  in  himself;  chano-es  which  must  be 
referred  to  the  immediate  agency  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  These  are 
facts.  They  cannot  be  reasonably  denied.  They  cannot  be  ex- 
plained away.  Tiiey  demonstrate  that  God  acts  as  a  sovereign  in 
the  distribution  of  his  grace.  With  this  fact  no  other  scheme  than 
the  Augustinian  can  be  reconciled.  If  salvation  is  of  grace,  as  the 
Scriptures  so  clearly  teach,  then  it  is  not  of  works  whether  actual 
or  foreseen. 

Express  Declarations  of  Scripture. 

6.  The  Scriptures  clearly  assert  that  God  has  mercy  on  whom 
He  will  have  mercy,  and  compassion  on  him  on  whom  He  will 
have  compassion.  They  teach  negatively,  that  election  to  sal- 
vation is  not  of  works ;  that  it  does  not  depend  on  the  character 
or  efforts  of  its  objects ;  and  affirmatively,  that  it  does  depend  on 


346         PART  III.     Ch.   I. —  THE  PLAN   OF   SALVATION. 

God.  It  is  referred  to  his  good  pleasure.  It  is  declared  to  be  of 
Him ;  to  be  of  o-race.  Passaoes  in  which  these  negative  and  affirm- 
ative  statements  are  made,  have  already  been  quoted.  In  Rom.  ix. 
it  is  said  that  election  is  "  not  of  woi'ks,  but  of  Him  that  calleth." 
"  So  then,  it  is  not  of  him  that  vvilleth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth, 
but  of  God  that  sheweth  mercy."  As  in  the  time  of  Elias  amid  the 
general  apostasy,  God  said,  "  I  have  left  me  seven  thousand  in 
Israel,  all  the  knees  which  have  not  bowed  the  knee  unto  Baal." 
(1  Kings,  xix.  18.)  "So  then,"  says  the  Apostle,  "there  is  a  rem- 
nant according  to  the  election  of  grace.  And  if  by  grace,  then  is 
it  no  more  of  works:  otherwise  grace  is  no  more  grace."  (Rom. 
xi.  5,  6.)  So  in  Rom.  viii.  30,  it  is  said,  "Whom  He  did  predesti- 
nate, them  He  also  called,"  i.  e.,  He  regenerated  and  sanctified. 
Regeneration  follows  predestination  to  life,  and  is  the  gift  of  God. 
Paul  said  of  himself,  "  It  pleased  God,  who  separated  me  from  my 
mother's  womb,  and  called  me  by  his  grace,  to  reveal  his  Son  in 
me."  (Gal.  i.  15,  16.)  To  the  Ephesians  he  says  that  those  obtain 
the  inheritance,  who  were  "  predestinated  according  to  the  purpose 
of  Him  who  w'orketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will." 
(Eph.  i.  12.)  In  2  Tim.  i.  9,  he  says,  we  are  saved  "  according  to 
his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus 
before  the  world  began."  The  Apostle  James,  i.  18,  says,  "  Of 
his  own  will  begat  He  us  with  the  word  of  truth,  that  we  should  be 
a  kind  of  first-fruits  of  his  creatures."  The  Apostle  Peter  speaks 
of  those  who  "  stumble  at  the  word,  being  disobedient :  whereunto 
also  they  were  appointed."  (1  Pet.  ii.  8.)  And  Jude  speaks  of 
certain  men  who  had  "  crept  in  unawares,  who  were  before  of  old 
ordained  to  this  condemnation."  (Jude  4.)  This  foreordination  to 
condemnation  is  indeed  a  judicial  act,  as  is  taught  in  Rom.  ix.  22. 
God  condemns  no  man,  and  foreordains  no  man  tio  condemnation, 
except  on  account  of  his  sin.  But  the  preterition  of  such  men, 
leaving  them,  rather  than  others  equally  guilty,  to  suffer  the  pen- 
alty of  their  sins,  is  distinctly  declared  to  be  a  sovereign  act. 

The  Words  of  Jesus. 

Of  all  the  teachers  sent  by  God  to  reveal  his  will,  no  one  more 
frequently  asserts  the  divine  sovereignty  than  our  blessed  Lord 
himself.  He  speaks  of  those  whom  the  Father  had  "  given  Him." 
(John  xvii.  2.)  To  these  He  gives  eternal  life.  (John  xvii.  2, 
24.)  For  these  He  prays ;  for  them  He  sanctified  Himself. 
(John  xvii.  19.)  Of  them  He  says,  it  is  the  Father's  will  that  He 
should  lose  none,  but  raise  them  up  at  the  last  day.    (John  vi.  39.) 


k 


§  8.]  THE    AUGUSTINIAN   SCHEME.  347 

They  are,  therefore,  perfectly  safe.  "  My  sheep  hear  my  voice, 
and  I  know  them,  and  they  follow  me:  and  I  give  unto  them  eternal 
life  ;  they  shall  never  perish,  neither  shall  any  man  pluck  them  out 
of  my  hand.  My  Father,  which  gave  them  me,  is  greater  than  all  ; 
and  no  man  is  able  to  pluck  them  out  of  my  Father's  hand." 
(John  X.  27-29.)  As  the  sheep  of  Christ  are  chosen  out  of  the 
world,  and  given  to  Him,  God  is  the  chooser.  They  do  not  choose 
Him,  but  He  chooses  them.  No  one  can  be  added  to  their  num- 
ber, and  that  number  shall  certainly  be  completed.  "  Ail  that 
the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to  me  ;  and  him  that  cometh 
to  me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out."  (John  vi.  37.)  "  No  man  can 
come  to  me,  except  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me  draw  him  :  and 
I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day."  (John  vi.  44.)  "  Every  man 
therefore  that  hath  heard,  and  learned  of  the  Father,  cometh  unto 
me."  (Verse  45.)  "  No  man  can  come  unto  me,  except  it  were 
given  unto  him  of  my  Father."  (Verse  65.)  With  God  it  rests 
who  shall  be  brought  to  the  saving  knowledge  of  the  truth.  "  It 
is  given  unto  you  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
but  to  them  it  is  not  given."  (Matt.  xiii.  11.)  "  I  thank  thee,  O 
Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  because  thou  hast  hid  these 
things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed  them  unto 
babes."  (Matt.  xi.  25.)  In  Acts  xiii.  48,  it  is  said,  "As  many 
as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life  believed."  The  Scriptures,  there- 
fore, say  that  repentance,  faith,  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  are  gifts  of  God.  Christ  was  exalted  at  the  right  hand  of 
God  to  give  repentance  and  remission  of  sins.  But  if  faith  and 
repentance  are  the  gifts  of  God  they  must  be  the  fruits  of  election. 
They  cannot  possibly  be  its  ground. 

If  the  office  of  the  theologian,  as  is  so  generally  admitted,  be 
to  take  the  facts  of  Scripture  as  the  man  of  science  does  those  of 
nature,  and  found  upon  them  his  doctrines,  instead  of  deducing  his 
doctrines  from  the  principles  or  primary  truths  of  his  phiIosoj)hy,  it 
seems  impossible  to  resist  the  conclusion  that  the  doctrine  of 
Auo;ustine  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  According  to  that  doctrine 
God  is  an  absolute  sovereign.  He  does  what  seems  good  in  his 
sight.  He  sends  the  truth  to  one  nation  and  not  to  another.  He 
gives  that  truth  saving  power  in  one  mind  and  not  in  another.  It 
is  of  Him,  and  not  of  us,  that  any  man  is  in  Chi'ist  Jesus,  and  is 
an  heir  of  eternal  hfe. 

This,  as  has  been  shown,  is  asserted  in  express  terms,  with  great 
frequency  and  clearness  in  the  Scriptures.  It  is  sustained  by  all 
the  facts  of  providence  and  of  revelation.     It  attributes   to  God 


348  PART  m.     Cii.   I. —  THE  PLAN   OF   SALVATION. 

nothing  but  wliat  is  proved,  by  his  actual  government  of  the  world, 
to  be  his  rightful  prerogative.  It  only  teaches  that  God  purposes 
what,  with  our  own  eyes,  we  see  He  actually  does,  and  ever  has 
done,  in  the  dispensatious  of  his  providence.  The  consistent 
opponent  of  this  doctrine  must,  therefore,  reject  the  truths  even  of 
natural  rehVion.  As  Aun;ustlnianism  agrees  with  the  facts  of  prov- 
idence  it  of  course  agrees  with  the  facts  of  Scripture.  The  Bible 
declares  that  the  salvation  of  sinful  men  is  a  matter  of  grace  ;  and 
that  the  great  design  of  the  whole  scheme  of  redemption  is  to  dis- 
play the  glory  of  that  divine  attribute,  —  to  exhibit  to  the  admiration, 
and  for  the  edification  of  the  intelligent  universe,  God's  unmerited 
love  and  boundless  beneficence  to  guilty  and  polluted  creatures. 
Accordingly,  men  are  represented  as  being  sunk  into  a  state  of  sin 
and  miserv  ;  from  this  state  they  cannot  deliver  themselves  ;  for 
their  redemption  God  sent  his  own  eternal  Son  to  assume  their 
nature,  obey,  and  suffer  in  their  place  ;  and  his  Holy  Spirit  to 
apply  the  redemption  purchased  by  the  Son.  To  introduce  the 
element  of  merit  into  any  part  of  this  scheme  vitiates  its  nature 
and  frustrates  its  design.  Uidess  our  salvation  from  beginning  to 
end  be  of  grace  it  is  not  an  exhibition  of  grace.  The  Bible, 
however,  teaches  that  it  was  a  matter  of  grace  that  salvation  was 
provided  ;  that  it  was  revealed  to  one  nation  and  not  to  another  ; 
and  that  it  was  applied  to  one  person  and  not  to  another.  It  teaches 
that  all  goodness  in  man  is  due  to  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  that  all  spiritual  blessings  are  the  fruits  of  election  ;  that  we 
are  chosen  to  holiness,  and  created  unto  good  works,  because  pre- 
destinated to  be  the  children  of  God.  With  these  facts  of  Scripture 
the  experience  of  Christians  agrees.  It  is  the  intimate  conviction 
of  every  believer,  founded  upon  the  testimony  of  his  own  conscious- 
ness, as  well  as  upon  the  Scriptures,  that  his  salvation  is  of  God  ; 
that  it  is  of  Him,  and  not  of  himself,  that  he  has  been  brought  to 
the  exercise  of  faith  and  repentance.  So  long  as  he  looks  within 
the  believer  is  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  these  doctrines.  It  is  only 
when  he  looks  outward,  and  attempts  to  reconcile  these  truths  with 
the  dictates  of  his  own  understanding  that  he  becomes  confused 
and  sceptical.  But  as  our  faith  is  not  founded  on  the  wisdom  of 
men,  but  on  the  power  of  God,  as  the  foolishness  of  God  is  wiser 
than  men,  the  part  of  wisdom,  as  well  as  the  path  of  duty  and  safety, 
is  to  receive  as  true  what  God  has  revealed,  whether  we  can 
comprehend  his  ways  unto  perfection  or  not. 


I 


§  9.]        OBJECTIONS   TO   THE   AUGUSTINIAN   SCHEME.         349 

§  9.    Objections  to  the  Augustinian  Scheme. 

That  there  are  formidable  objections  to  the  Augustinian  doctrine 
of  divine  sovereignty  cannot  be  denied.  They  address  themselves 
even  more  powerfully  to  the  feelings  and  to  the  imagination  than 
they  do  to  the  understanding.  They  are  therefore  often  arrayed  in 
such  distorted  and  exaggerated  forms  as  to  produce  the  strongest 
revulsion  and  abhorrence.  This,  however,  is  due  partly  to  the  dis- 
tortion of  the  truth  and^  partly  to  the  opposition  of  our  imperfectly 
or  utterly  unsanctified  nature,  to  the  things  of  the  Spirit,  of  which 
the  Apostle  speaks  in  1  Cor.  ii.  14. 

Of  these  objections,  however,  it  may  be  remarked  in  general,  in 
the  first  place,  that  they  do  not  bear  exclusively  on  this  doctrine. 
It  is  one  of  the  unfair  devices  of  controversy  to  represent  difficulties 
which  press  with  equal  force  against  some  admitted  doctrine  as 
valid  only  against  the  doctrine  which  the  objector  rejects.  Thus 
the  objections  against  Augustinianism,  on  which  special  reliance  is 
placed,  bear  with  their  full  force  against  the  decrees  of  God  in 
general  ;  or  if  these  be  denied,  against  the  divine  foreknowledge  ; 
against  the  permission  of  sin  and  misery,  and  especially  against  the 
doctrine  of  the  unending  sinfulness  and  misery  of  many  of  God's 
intelligent  creatures.  These  are  doctrines  which  all  Christians  ad- 
mit, and  which  are  arrayed  by  infidels  and  atheists  in  colours  as 
shocking  to  the  imagination  and  feelings  as  any  which  Anti-Augus- 
tinians  have  employed  in  depicting  the  sovereignty  of  God.  It  is 
just  as  difficult  to  reconcile  to  our  natural  ideas  of  God  that  He, 
with  absolute  control  over  all  creatures,  should  allow  so  many  of 
them  to  perish  eternally  as  that  He  should  save  some  and  not  others. 
The  difficulty  is  in  both  cases  the  same.  God  does  not  pi-event  the 
perdition  of  those  whom,  beyond  doubt,  He  has  power  to  save.  If 
those  who  admit  God's  providence  say  that  He  has  wise  reasons 
for  permitting  so  many  of  our  race  to  perish,  the  advocates  of  his 
sovereignty  say  that  He  has  adequate  reasons  for  saving  some  and 
not  others.  It  is  unreasonable  and  unjust,  therefore,  to  press  diffi- 
culties which  bear  against  admitted  truths  as  fatal  to  doctrines 
which  are  matters  of  controversy.  When  an  objection  is  shown  to 
prove  too  much  it  is  rationally  refuted. 

The  sayne  Objections  bear  agaiyist  the  Providence  of  Crod. 

A  second  general  remark  respecting  these  objections  is,  that  they 
bear  against  the  providence  of  God.  This  has  already  been  shown. 
It  is   useless  and  irrational  to  argue  against  facts.     It  can  avail 


350         PART  III.     Ch.  I.  — the   plan   OF   SALVATION. 

notliing  to  say  that  it  is  unjust  in  God  to  deal  more  favourably  witli 
one  nation  than  with  another,  with  one  individual  than  with  another, 
if  in  point  of  fact  He  acts  as  a  sovereign  in  the  distribution  of  his 
favours.  That  He  does  so  act  is  undeniable  so  far  as  providential 
blessings  and  religious  advantages  are  concerned.  And  this  is  all 
that  Augustinianism  asserts  in  regard  to  the  dispensations  of  his 
grace.  If,  therefore,  the  principle  on  which  these  objections  are 
founded  is  proved  to  be  false  by  the  actual  facts  of  providence  the 
objections  cannot  be  valid  against  the  Augustinian  scheme. 

Founded  on  our  Ignorance. 

A  third  obvious  remark  is  that  these  objections  are  subjective  ; 
i.  e.,  they  derive  all  their  force  from  the  limitation  of  our  powers 
and  from  the  narrowness  of  our  views.  They  assume  that  we  are 
competent  to  sit  in  judgment  on  God's  government  of  the  universe; 
that  we  can  ascertain  the  end  which  He  has  in  view,  and  estimate 
aright  the  wisdom  and  justice  of  the  means  adopted  for  its 
accomplishment.  This  is  clearly  a  preposterous  assumption,  not 
only  because  of  our  utter  incapacity  to  comprehend  the  ways  of 
God,  but  also  because  we  must  of  necessity  judge  before  the  con- 
summation of  his  plan,  and  must  also  judge  from  appearances.  It 
is  but  right  in  judging  of  the  plans  even  of  a  fellow  mortal,  that 
we  should  wait  until  they  are  fully  developed,  and  also  right  that 
we  should  not  judge  without  being  certain  that  we  can  see  his  real 
intentions,  and  the  connection  between  his  means  and  end. 

Besides  all  this,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  these  difficulties  arise 
from  our  contemplating,  so  to  speak,  only  one  aspect  of  the  case. 
We  look  onlv  on  the  sovereignty  of  God  and  the  absolute  nature 
of  his  control  over  his  creatures.  We  leave  out  of  view,  or  are 
incapable  of  understanding  the  perfect  consistency  of  that  sove- 
reignty and  control,  with  the  free  agency  and  responsibility  of  his 
rational  creatures.  It  is  perfectly  true,  in  one  aspect,  tliat  God 
determines  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure  the  destiny  of  every 
human  being ;  and  it  is  equally  true,  in  another  aspect,  that  every 
man  detertnines  his  own  destiny.  These  truths  can  both  be  estab- 
lished on  the  firmest  grounds."  Their  consistency,  therefore,  must 
be  admitted  as  a  fact,  even  though  we  may  not  be  able  to  discover 
it.  Of  the  multitudes  who  start  in  the  pursuit  of  fame,  wealth,  or 
power,  sotne  succeed  while  others  fail.  Success  and  failure,  in 
every  case,  are  determined  by  the  Lord.  This  is  distinctly  asserted 
in  the  Bible.  "  God,"  saith  the  Psalmist,  "  putteth  down  one  and 
setteth  up  another."     (Ps.  Ixxv.  7.)     "  The  Lord  maketh  poor,  and 


§9.]         OBJECTIONS  TO   THE   AUGUSTINIAN   SCHEME.        351 

maketh  rich :  He  bringeth  low,  and  lifteth  up."  (1  Sam.  ii.  7.} 
"  The  Lord  gave,  and  the  Lord  hath  taken  away  ;  blessed  be  the 
name  of  the  Lord."  (Job  i.  21.)  "  It  is  He  that  giveth  thee 
power  to  get  wealth."  (Dent.  viii.  18.)  "  He  giveth  wisdom  unto 
the  wise,  and  knowledge  to  them  that  know  understanding."  (Dan. 
ii.  2L)  "  The  Most  High  ruleth  in  the  kingdom  of  men,  and  giv- 
eth it  to  whomsoever  He  will."  (Dan.  iv.  17.)  This  is  a  truth 
of  natural  religion.  All  men,  whether  Christians  or  not,  pray  for 
the  success  of  their  enterprises.  They  recognize  the  providential 
control  of  God  over  all  the  affairs  of  men.  Nevertheless  they  are 
fully  aware  of  the  consistency  of  this  control  with  their  own  free 
agency  and  responsibility.  Every  man  who  makes  the  acquisition 
of  wealth  his  object  in  life,  is  conscious  that  he  does  it  of  his  own 
free  choice.  He  lays  his  own  planfc  ;  adopts  his  own  means  ;  and 
acts  as  freely,  and  as  entirely  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own 
will,  as  though  there  were  no  such  thing  as  providence.  This  is 
not  a  delusion.  He  is  perfectly  free.  His  character  expresses  itself 
in  the  choice  which  he  makes  of  the  end  which  he  desires  to  secure. 
He  cannot  help  recognizing  his  responsibility  for  that  choice,  and 
for  all  the  means  which  he  adopts  to  carry  it  into  effect.  All  this 
is  true  in  the  sphere  of  religion.  God  places  life  and  death  before 
every  man  who  hears  the  gospel.  He  warns  him  of  the  conse- 
quences of  a  wrong  choice.  He  presents  and  urges  all  the  consid- 
erations which  should  lead  to  a  rio-ht  determination.  He  assures 
the  sinner  that  if  he  forsakes  his  sin,  and  returns  unto  the  Lord,  he 
shall  be  pardoned  and  accepted.  He  promises  that  if  he  asks,  he 
shall  receive  ;  if  he  seeks  he  shall  find.  He  assures  him  that  He 
is  more  willing  to  give  the  Holy  Spirit,  than  parents  are  to  give 
bread  unto  their  children.  If,  notwithstanding  all  this,  he  delib- 
erately prefers  the  world,  refuses  to  seek  the  salvation  of  his  soul 
in  the  appointed  way,  and  finally  perishes,  he  is  as  completely 
responsible  for  his  character  and  conduct,  and  for  the  perdition  of 
his  soul,  as  the  man  of  the  world  is  responsible  for  the  pursuit  of 
wealth.  In  both  cases,  and  equally  in  both  cases,  the  sovereign 
disjmsition  of  God  is  consistent  with  the  freedom  and  responsibility 
of  the  agents.  It  is,  therefore,  by  looking  at  only  one  half  of  the 
whole  truth,  that  the  difficulties  in  question  are  magnified  into  such 
importance.  Men  act  as  freely  in  religion  as  they  do  in  any 
department  of  life  ;  and  when  they  perish  it  is  the  work  of  their 
own  hands. 


352     PART  ni.   ch.  l  — the  plan  of  salvation. 

These  Objections  were  urged  against  the  Teachings  of  the  Apostles. 

Another  remark  respecting  these  objections  should  not  be  over- 
looked. They  were  urged  by  the  Jews  against  the  doctrine  of  the 
Apostle.  This  at  least  proves  that  his  doctrine  is  our  doctrine. 
Had  he  not  taught  what  all  Augustinians  hold  to  be  true,  there 
would  have  been  no  room  for  such  objections.  Had  he  denied  that 
God  dispenses  salvation  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure,  having 
mercy  on  whom  He  will  have  mercy,  why  should  the  Jews  urge 
that  God  was  unjust  and  that  the  responsibility  of  man  was  de- 
stroyed? What  appearaiice  of  injustice  could  there  have  been  had 
Paul  taught  that  God  elects  those  whom  He  foresees  will  repent 
and  believe,  and  because  of  that  foresight?  It  is  only  because 
he  clearly  asserts  the  sovereignly  of  God  that  the  objections  have 
any  place.  The  answers  which  Paul  gives  to  these  difficulties 
should  satisfy  us  for  two  reasons  ;  first,  because  they  are  the  an- 
swers dictated  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  and  secondly,  because  they 
are  in  themselves  satisfactory  to  every  rightly  constituted  mind. 

The  first  of  these  objections  is  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the 
justice  of  God  to  save  one  and  not  another,  according  to  his  own 
good  pleasure.  To  this  Paul  answers,  (1.)  That  God  claims  this 
prerogative.  (2.)  That  He  actually  exercises  it.  It  is  useless  to 
deny  facts,  or  to  say  that  what  God  really  does  is  inconsistent  with 
his  nature.  (3.)  That  it  is  a  rightful  prerogative,  founded  not  only 
on  the  infinite  superiority  of  God  and  in  his  proprietorship  in  all  his 
creatures  ;  but  also  in  his  relation  as  moral  governor  to  the  race  of 
sinful  men.  If  even  a  human  sovereign  is  entitled  to  exercise  his 
discretion  in  pardoning  one  criminal  and  not  another,  surely  this 
prerogative  cannot  reasonably  be  denied  to  God.  There  can  be 
no  injustice  in  allowing  the  sentence  of  a  just  law  to  be  executed 
upon  an  offender.  And  this  is  all  that  God  does  in  regard  to  sin- 
ners. 

The  further  difficulty  connected  with  this  subject  arising  from 
the  foreordination  of  sin,  belongs  to  the  subject  of  decrees,  and  has 
already  been  considered.  The  same  remark  applies  to  the  objec- 
tion that  the  doctrine  in  question  destroys  all  motive  to  exertion 
and  to  the  use  of  means  of  grace  ;  and  reduces  the  doctrine  of  the 
Scriptures  to  a  purely  fatalistic  system. 

The  practical  tendency  of  any  doctrine  is  to  be  decided  from  its 
nature,  and  from  its  effects.  The  natural  effect  of  the  conviction 
that  we  have  forfeited  all  claims  on  God's  justice,  that  we  are  at 
his  mercy,  and  that  He  may  rightfully  leave  us  to  perish  in  our  sins, 


§9.]        OBJECTIONS  TO   THE  AUGUSTINIAN  SCHEME.         353 

is  to  lead  us  to  seek  that  mercy  with  earnestness  and  importunity. 
And  the  experience  of  the  Church  in  all  ages  proves  that  such  is 
the  actual  effect  of  the  doctrine  in  question.  It  has  not  led  to 
neglect,  to  stolid  unconcern,  or  to  rebellious  opposition  to  God,  but 
to  submission,  to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  truth,  and  to  sure 
trust  in  Christ  as  the  appointed  Saviour  of  those  who  deserve  to 
perish. 

VOL.  n.  23 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  COVENANT   OF  GRACE. 
§  1.   The  Plan  of  Salvation  is  a  Covenant. 

The  plan  of  salvation  is  presented  under  the  form  of  a  covenant. 
This  is  evident,  — 

First,  from  the  constant  use  of  the  words  n"^"!?  and  hiaOrjKiq  in 
reference  to  it.  With  regard  to  the  former  of  these  words,  al- 
though it  is  sometimes  used  for  a  law,  disposition,  or  arrangement 
in  general,  where  the  elements  of  a  covenant  strictly  speaking  are 
absent,  yet  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  according  to  its  prevailing 
usage  in  tlie  Old  Testament,  it  means  a  mutual  contract  between 
two  or  more  parties.  It  is  very  often  used  of  compacts  between 
individuals,  and  especially  between  kings  and  rulers.  Abraham  and 
Abimelech  made  a  covenant.  (Gen.  xxi.  27.)  Joshua  made  a  cov- 
enant with  the  people.  (Josh.  xxiv.  25.)  Jonathan  and  David 
made  a  covenant.  (1  Sam.  xviii.  8.)  Jonathan  made  a  covenant 
with  the  house  of  David.  (1  Sam.  xx.  16.)  Ahab  made  a  cov- 
enant with  Benhadad.  (1  Kings  xx.  34.)  So  we  find  it  constantly. 
There  is  therefore  no  room  to  doubt  that  the  word  n"*!!!  when  used 
of  transactions  between  man  and  man  means  a  mutual  compact. 
We  have  no  right  to  give  it  any  other  sense  when  used  of  trans- 
actions between  God  and  man.  Repeated  mention  is  made  of  the 
covenant  of  God  with  Abraham,  as  in  Gen.  xv.  18  ;  xvii.  13,  and 
afterwards  with  Isaac  and  Jacob.  Then  with  the  Israelites  at 
Mount  Sinai.  The  Old  Testament  is  founded  on  this  idea  of  a 
covenant  relation  between  God  and  the  theocratic  people. 

The  meaning  of  the  word  hiaOrjKrj  in  the  Greek  Scriptures  is  just 
as  certain  and  uniform.  It  is  derived  from  the  verb  StaTt^T^/ii,  to 
arrange^  and,  therefore,  in  ordinary  Greek  is  used  for  any  arrange- 
ment, or  disposition.  In  the  Scriptures  it  is  almost  uniformly  used 
in  the  sense  of  a  covenant.  In  the  Septuagint  it  is  the  translation 
of  n"^"^?  in  all  the  cases  above  referred  to.  It  is  the  term  always 
used  in  the  New  Testament  to  designate  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, with  the  Israelites,  and  witli  believers.  The  old  covenant 
and  the  new  are  presented  in  contrast.     Both  were  covenants.     If 


i 


§2.]  DIFFERENT   VIEWS   OF   THE   COVENANT.  355 

the  word  has  this  meaning  when  applied  to  the  transaction  with 
Abraham  and  with  the  Hebrews,  it  must  have  the  same  meaning 
when  appHed  to  the  plan  of  salvation  revealed  in  the  gospel. 

Secondly,  that  the  plan  of  salvation  is  presented  in  the  Bible 
under  the  form  of  a  covenant  is  proved  not  only  from  the  signifi- 
cation and  usage  of  the  words  above  mentioned,  but  also  and  more 
decisively  from  the  fact  that  the  elements  of  a  covenant  are  in- 
cluded in  this  plan.  There  are  parties,  mutual  promises  or  stipu- 
lations, and  conditions.  So  that  it  is  in  fact  a  covenant,  whatever 
it  may  be  called.  As  this  is  the  Scriptural  mode  of  representation, 
it  is  of  great  importance  that  it  should  be  retained  in  theology. 
Our  only  security  for  retaining  the  truths  of  the  Bible,  is  to  adhere 
to  the  Scriptures  as  closely  as  possible  in  our  mode  of  presenting 
the  doctrines  therein  revealed. 

§  2.  Different  Views  of  the  Nature  of  this  Covenant. 

It  is  assumed  by  many  that  the  parties  to  the  covenant  of  grace 
are  God  and  fallen  man.  Man  by  his  apostasy  having  forfeited 
the  favour  of  God,  lost  the  divine  image,  and  involved  himself  in 
sin  and  misery,  must  have  perished  in  this  state,  had  not  God  pro- 
vided a  plan  of  salvation.  Moved  by  compassion  for  his  fallen 
creatures,  God  determined  to  send  his  Son  into  the  world,  to  assume 
their  nature,  and  to  do  and  suffer  whatever  was  requisite  for  their 
salvation.  On  the  ground  of  this  redeeming  work  of  Christ,  God 
promises  salvation  to  all  who  will  comply  with  the  terms  on  which 
it  is  offered.  This  general  statement  embraces  forms  of  opinion 
which  differ  very  much  one  from  the  others. 

1.  It  includes  even  the  Pelagian  view  of  the  plan  of  salvation, 
which  assumes  that  there  is  no  difference  between  the  coA^enant  of 
works  under  which  Adam  was  placed,  and  the  covenant  of  grace, 
under  which  men  are  now,  except  as  to  the  extent  of  the  obedi- 
ence required.  God  promised  life  to  Adam  on  the  condition  of 
perfect  obedience,  because  he  was  in  a  condition  to  render  such 
obedience.  He  promises  salvation  to  men  now  on  the  condition  of 
such  obedience  as  they  are  able  to  render,  whether  Jews,  Pagans, 
or  Christians.  According  to  this  view  the  parties  to  the  covenant 
are  God  and  man ;  the  promise  is  life  ;  the  condition  is  obedience, 
such  as  man  in  the  use  of  his  natural  powers  is  able  to  render. 

2.  The  Remonstrant  system  does  not  differ  essentially  from  the 
Pelagian,  so  far  as  the  parties,  the  promise  and  the  condition  of  the 
covenant  are  concerned.  The  Remonstrants  also  make  God  and 
man   the   parties,  life   the   promise,  and  obedience  the  condition. 


356     PART  in.   Ch.  il  — the  covenant  of  grace. 

But  tliey  regard  fallen  men  as  in  a  state  of  sin  by  nature,  as  need- 
ing supernatural  gi'ace  which  is  furnished  to  all,  and  the  obedience 
required  is  the  obedience  of  faith,  or  fides  obsequiosa,  faith  as  in- 
cluding and  securing  evangelical  obedience.  Salvation  under  the 
gospel  is  as  truly  by  Morks  as  under  the  law ;  but  the  obedience 
required  is  not  the  perfect  righteousness  demanded  of  Adam,  but 
such  as  fallen  man,  by  the  aid  of  the  Spirit,  is  now  able  to  perform. 

3.  Wesleyan  Arminianism  greatly  exalts  the  work  of  Christ,  the 
importance  of  the  Spirit's  influence,  and  the  grace  of  the  gospel 
above  the  standard  adopted  by  the  Remonstrants.  The  two  systems, 
however,  are  essentially  the  same.  The  work  of  Christ  has  equal 
reference  to  all  men.  It  secures  for  all  the  promise  of  salvation  on 
the  condition  of  evangelical  obedience  ;  and  it  obtains  for  all,  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  enough  measures  of  divine  grace  to  render  such 
obedience  practicable.  The  salvation  of  each  individual  man 
depends  on  the  use  which  he  makes  of  this  sufficient  grace. 

4.  The  Lutherans  also  hold  that  God  had  the  serious  purpose  to 
save  all  men ;  that  Christ  died  equally  for  all ;  that  salvation  is 
offered  to  all  who  hear  the  gospel^  on  the  condition,  not  of  works  or 
of  evangelical  obedience,  but  of  faith  alone ;  faith,  however,  is  the 
gift  of  God ;  men  have  not  the  power  to  believe,  but  they  have  the 
power  of  effectual  resistance ;  and  those,  and  those  only,  under 
the  gospel,  who  wilfully  resist,  perish,  and  for  that  reason. 
According  to  all  these  views,  which  were  more  fully  stated  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  the  covenant  of  grace  is  a  compact  between 
God  and  fallen  man,  in  which  God  promises  salvation  on  condition 
of  a  compliance  with  the  demands  of  the  gospel.  What  those 
demands  are,  as  we  have  seen,  is  differently  explained. 

The  essential  distinctions  between  the  above-mentioned  views  of 
the  plan  of  salvation,  or  covenant  of  grace,  and  the  Augustinian 
system,  are,  (1.)  That,  according  to  the  former,  its  provisions  have 
equal  reference  to  all  mankind,  whereas  according  to  the  latter  they 
have  special  reference  to  that  portion  of  our  race  who  are  actually 
saved  ;  and  (2.)  That  Augustinianism  says  that  it  is  God  and  not 
man  who  determines  who  are  to  be  saved.  As  has  been  already 
frequently  remarked,  the  question  which  of  these  systems  is  true  is 
not  to  be  decided  by  ascertaining  which  is  the  more  agreeable  to 
our  feelings  or  the  more  plausible  to  our  understanding,  but  which 
is  consistent  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  and  the  facts  of  experi- 
ence. This  point  has  already  been  discussed.  Our  present  object 
is  simply  to  state  what  Augustinians  mean  by  the  covenant  of 
grace. 


§  3.]  PARTIES  TO  THE   COVENANT.  357 

The  word  grace  is  used  in  Scripture  and  in  ordinary  religious 
writings  in  three  senses.  (1.)  For  unmerited  love ;  i.  e.,  love 
exercised  towards  the  undeserving.  (2.)  For  any  unmerited 
favour,  especially  for  spiritual  blessings.  Hence,  all  the  fruits  of 
the  Spirit  in  believers  are  called  graces,  or  unmerited  gifts  of  God. 
(3.)  The  word  grace  often  means  the  supernatural  influence  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  This  is  preeminently  grace,  being  the  great  gift 
secured  by  the  work  of  Christ,  and  without  which  his  redemption 
would  not  avail  to  our  salvation.  In  all  these  senses  of  the  word 
the  plan  of  salvation  is  properly  called  a  covenant  of  grace.  It  is 
of  grace  because  it  originated  in  the  mysterious  love  of  God  for 
sinners  who  deserved  only  his  wrath  and  curse.  Secondly,  because 
it  promises  salvation,  not  on  the  condition  of  works  or  anything 
meritorious  on  our  part,  but  as  an  unmerited  gift.  And,  thirdly, 
because  its  benefits  are  secured  and  applied  not  in  the  course  of 
nature,  or  in  the  exercise  of  the  natural  powers  of  the  sinner,  but 
by  the  supernatural  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  granted  to  him  as 
an  unmerited  gift. 

§  3.  Parties  to  the  Covenant. 

At  first  view  there  appears  to  be  some  confusion  in  the  state- 
ments of  the  Scriptures  as  to  the  parties  to  this  covenant.  Some- 
times Christ  is  presented  as  one  of  the  parties ;  at  others  He  is 
represented  not  as  a  party,  but  as  the  mediator  and  surety  of  the 
covenant ;  while  the  parties  are  represented  to  be  God  and  his 
people.  As  the  old  covenant  was  made  between  God  and  the 
Hebrews,  and  Moses  acted  as  mediator,  so  the  new  covenant  is 
commonly  represented  in  the  Bible  as  formed  between  God  and 
his  people,  Christ  acting  as  mediator.  He  is,  therefore,  called  the 
mediator  of  a  better  covenant  founded  on  better  promises. 

Some  theologians  propose  to  reconcile  these  modes  of  representa- 
tion by  saying  that  as  the  covenant  of  works  was  formed  with  Adam 
as  the  representative  of  his  race,  and  therefore  in  him  with  all 
mankind  descending  from  him  by  ordinary  generation  ;  so  the 
covenant  of  grace  was  formed  with  Christ  as  the  head  and  repre- 
sentative of  his  people,  and  in  Him  with  all  those  given  to  Him  by 
tlie  Father.  This  simplifies  the  matter,  and  agrees  with  the  parallel 
which  the  Apostle  traces  between  Adam  and  Christ  in  Rom.  v. 
12-21,  and  1  Cor.  xv.  21,  22,  47-49.  Still  it  does  not  remove  the 
incongruity  of  Christ's  being  represented  as  at  once  a  party  and  a 
mediator  of  the  same  covenant.  There  are  in  fact  two  covenants 
relating  to  the  salvation  of  fallen  man,  the  one  between  God  and 


358  PART  m.  ch.  il— the  covenant  of  grace. 

Christ,  the  other  between  God  and  his  people.  These  covenants 
differ  not  only  in  their  parties,  but  also  in  their  promises  and 
conditions.  Both  are  so  clearly  presented  in  the  Bible  that  they 
should  not  be  confounded.  The  latter,  the  covenant  of  grace,  is 
founded  on  the  former,  the  covenant  of  redemption.  Of  the  one 
Christ  is  the  mediator  and  surety ;  of  the  other  He  is  one  of  the 
contracting  parties. 

This  is  a  matter  which  concerns  only  perspicuity  of  statement. 
There  is  no  doctrinal  difference  between  those  who  prefer  the  one 
statement  and  those  who  prefer  the  other ;  between  those  who 
comprise  all  the  facts  of  Scripture  relating  to  the  subject  under  one 
covenant  between  God  and  Christ  as  the  representative  of  his 
people,  and  those  who  distribute  them  under  two.  The  Westmin- 
ster standards  seem  to  adopt  sometimes  the  one  and  sometimes 
the  other  mode  of  representation.  In  the  Confession  of  Faitli  ^  it  is 
said,  "  Man,  by  his  fall,  having  made  himself  incapable  of  life  by 
that  covenant  [i.  e.,  by  the  covenant  of  works],  the  Lord  was 
pleased  to  make  a  second,  commonly  called  the  covenant  of  grace ; 
wherein  He  freely  offereth  unto  sinners  life  and  salvation  by  Jesus 
Christ,  requiring  of  them  faith  in  Him,  that  they  may  be  saved, 
and  promising  to  give  unto  all  those  that  are  ordained  unto  life,  his 
Holy  Spirit,  to  make  them  willing  and  able  to  believe."  Here  the 
implication  is  that  God  and  his  people  are  the  parties ;  for  in  a 
covenant  the  promises  are  made  to  one  of  the  parties,  and  here  it 
is  said  that  life  and  salvation  are  promised  to  sinners,  and  that  faith 
is  demanded  of  them.  The  same  view  is  presented  in  the  Shorter 
Catechism,  according  to  the  natural  interpretation  of  the  answer  to 
the  twentieth  question.  It  is  there  said,  "  God  having  out  of  his 
mere  good  pleasure,  from  all  eternity,  elected  some  to  everlasting 
life,  did  enter  into  a  covenant  of  grace,  to  deliver  them  out  of  the 
estate  of  sin  and  misery,  and  to  bring  them  into  an  estate  of  salvation 
by  a  Redeemer."  In  the  Larger  Catechism,  however,  the  other 
view  is  expressly  adopted.  In  the  answer  to  the  question,^  "With 
whom  was  the  covenant  of  grace  made  ?  "  it  is  said,  "  The  covenant 
of  grace  was  made  with  Christ  as  the  second  Adam,  and  in  Him 
with  all  the  elect  as  his  seed." 

Two  Covenants  to  he  Distinguished. 
This  conftision  is  avoided  by  distinguishing  between  the  covenant 
of  redemption  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  the  covenant 
of  grace  between  God  and  his  people.     The  latter  supposes  the 

1  Chap.  vii.  §  3.  '^  Ques.  31. 


I 


§4.]  COVENANT   OF   REDEMPTION.  359 

former,  and  is  founded  upon  it.  Tlie  two,  however,  ought  not  to 
be  confounded,  as  both  are  clearly  revealed  in  Scripture,  and 
moreover  thej'  differ  as  to  the  parties,  as  to  the  promises,  and  as  to 
the  conditions.  On  tliis  subject  Turrettin  says,^  "  Atque  hie  su- 
perfluum  videtur  quserere.  An  foedus  hoc  contractum  fuerit  cum 
Chrlsto,  tanquam  altera  parte  contrahente,  et  in  ipso  cum  toto  ejus 
semlne,  ut  primum  foedus  cum  Adamo  pactum  fuerat,  et  in  Adamo 
cum  tota  ejus  poteritate :  quod  non  paucis  placet,  quia  proniissiones 
ipsi  dicuntur  factae.  Gal.  iii.  16,  et  quia,  ut  Caput  et  Princeps  pop- 
uli  sui,  in  omnibus  primas  tenet,  ut  nihil  nisi  in  ipso  et  ab  ipso 
obtineri  possit :  An  vero  foedus  contractum  sit  in  Christo  cum  toto 
semine,  ut  non  tarn  habeat  rationem  partis  contrahentis,  quam 
partis  mediae,  quae  inter  dissidentes  stat  ad  eos  reconciliandos,  ut 
aliis  satius  videtur.  Superfluum,  inquam,  est  de  eo  disceptare,  quia 
res  eodem  redit;  et  certum  est  duplex  h'lc  pactum  necessario 
attendendum  esse,  vel  unius  ejusdem  pacti  duas  partes  et  gradus. 
Prius  pactum  est,  quod  inter  Patrem  et  Filium  intercedit,  ad  opus 
redemptionis  exequendum.  Posterius  est,  quod  Deus  cum  electis 
in  Christo  contrahit,  de  illis  per  et  propter  Christum  salvandis  sub 
conditione  fidei  et  resipiscentiae.  Prius  fit  cum  Sponsore  et  capite 
ad  salutem  membrorum :  Posterius  fit  cum  membris  in  capite  et 
sponsore." 

The  same  view  is  taken  by  Witsius :  ^  "  Ut  Foederis  gratiae 
natura  penitius  perspecta  sit,  duo  imprimis  distincte  consideranda 
sunt.  (1.)  Pactum,  quod  inter  Deum  Patrem  et  mediatorem 
Christum  intercedit.  (2.)  Testamentaria  ilia  dispositio,  qua  Deus 
electis  salutem  aeternam,  et  omnia  eo  pertinentia,  immutabili  foedere 
addicit.  Prior  conventio  Dei  cum  mediatore  est:  posterior  Dei 
cum  electis.     Haec  illam  supponit,  and  in  ilia  fundatur." 

§  4.    Covenant  of  Redemption. 

By  this  is  meant  the  covenant  between  the  Father  and  the  Son 
in  reference  to  the  salvation  of  man.  This  is  a  subject  which,  from 
its  nature,  is  entirely  beyond  our  comprehension.  We  must  receive 
the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  in  relation  to  it  without  presuming 
to  penetrate  the  mystery  which  naturally  belongs  to  it.  There  is 
only  one  God,  one  divine  Being,  to  whom  all  the  attributes  of 
divinity  belong.  But  in  the  Godhead  there  are  three  persons,  the 
same  in  substance,  and  equal  in  power  and  glory.  It  lies  in  the 
nature  of  personality,  that  one  person  is  objective  to  another.     If, 

1  xn.  ii.  12  ;  edit.  Edinburgh,  1847,  vol.  ii.  pp.  157,  158. 

2  Be  (Economia  Fcederum,  lib.  ii.  ii.  1,  edit.  1712,  p.  130. 


360  PART  m.  ch.  n.  — the  covenant  of  grace. 

therefore,  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  distinct  persons  the  one  may 
be  the  object  of  the  acts  of  the  other.  The  one  may  love,  address, 
and  commune  with  the  other.  The  Father  may  send  the  Son, 
may  give  Him  a  work  to  do,  and  promise  Him  a  recompense.  All 
this  is  indeed  incomprehensible  to  us,  but  being  clearly  taught  in 
Scripture,  it  must  enter  into  the  Christian's  faith. 

In  order  to  prove  that  there  is  a  covenant  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  formed  in  eternity,  and  revealed  in  time,  it  is  not 
necessary  that  we  should  adduce  passages  of  the  Scriptures  in 
which  this  truth  is  expressly  asserted.  There  are  indeed  passages 
which  are  equivalent  to  such  direct  assertions.  This  is  implied  in 
the  frequently  recurring  statements  of  the  Scripture  that  the  plan 
of  God  respecting  the  salvation  of  men  was  of  the  nature  of  a 
covenant,  and  was  formed  in  eternity.  Paul  says  that  it  was  hidden 
for  ages  in  the  divine  mind ;  that  it  was  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world.  Christ  speaks  of  promises  made  to  Him  before  his  advent ; 
and  that  He  came  into  the  world  in  execution  of  a  commission 
which  He  had  received  from  the  Father.  The  parallel  so  distinctly 
drawn  between  Adam  and  Christ  is  also  a  proof  of  the  point  in 
question.  As  Adam  was  the  head  and  representative  of  his  pos- 
terity, so  Christ  is  the  head  and  representative  of  his  people.  And 
as  God  entered  into  covenant  with  Adam  so  He  entered  into 
covenant  with  Christ.  This,  in  Rom.  v.  12-21,  is  set  forth  as  the 
fundamental  idea  of  all  God's  dealings  with  men,  both  in  their  fall 
and  in  their  redemption. 

The  proof  of  the  doctrine  has,  however,  a  much  wider  foundation. 
When  one  person  assigns  a  stipulated  work  to  another  person  with 
the  promise  of  a  reward  upon  the  condition  of  the  performance  of 
that  work,  there  is  a  covenant.  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that 
all  this  is  true  in  relation  to  the  Father  and  the  Son.  The  Father 
gave  the  Son  a  work  to  do ;  He  sent  Him  into  the  world  to  perform 
it,  and  promised  Him  a  great  reward  when  the  work  was  accom- 
plished. Such  is  the  constant  representation  of  the  Scriptures. 
We  have,  therefore,  the  contracting  parties,  the  promise,  and  the 
condition.  These  are  the  essential  elements  of  a  covenant.  Such 
being  the  representation  of  Scripture,  such  must  be  the  truth  to 
which  we  are  bound  to  adliere.  It  is  not  a  mere  figure,  but  a  real 
transaction,  and  should  be  regarded  and  treated  as  such  if  we  would 
nnderstand  aright  the  plan  of  salvation.  In  the  fortieth  Psalm, 
expoimded  by  the  Apostle  as  referring  to  the  Messiah,  it  is  said, 
"  Lo,  I  come  :  in  the  volume  of  the  book  it  is  written  of  me,  I 
delight  to  do  thv  will,"  i.  g.,  to  execute  thy  purpose,  to  carry  out 


§4.]  COVENANT   OF   REDEMPTION.  361 

thy  plan.  "  By  the  which  will,"  says  the  Apostle  (Heb.  x.  10), 
"  we  are  sanctified  («.  g.,  cleansed  from  the  guilt  of  sin),  through 
the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all."  Christ  came, 
therefore,  in  execution  of  a  purpose  of  God,  to  fulfil  a  work  which 
had  been  assigned  Him.  He,  therefore,  in  John  xvii.  4,  says,  "I 
have  finished  the  work  which  thou  gavest  me  to  do."  This  was 
said  at  the  close  of  his  earthly  course.  At  its  beginning,  when  yet  a 
child.  He  said  to  his  parents,  "  Wist  ye  not  that  I  must  be  about  my 
Father's  business?"  (Luke  ii.  49.)  Our  Lord  speaks  of  Himself, 
and  is  spoken  of  as  sent  into  the  world.  He  says  that  as  the  Father 
had  sent  Him  into  the  world,  even  so  had  He  sent  his  disciples 
into  the  world.  (John  xvii.  18.)  "When  the  fulness  of  the  time 
was  come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman."  (Gal.  iv.  4.) 
"  God  sent  his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world."  (1  John  iv.  9.) 
God  "sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins."  (Verse  10.) 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  Christ  came  to  execute  a  work,  that  He 
was  sent  of  the  Father  to  fulfil  a  plan,  or  preconceived  design.  It 
is  no  less  plain  that  special  promises  were  made  by  the  Father  to 
the  Son,  suspended  upon  the  accomplishment  of  the  work  assigned 
Him.  This  may  appear  as  an  anthropological  mode  of  representing 
a  transaction  between  the  persons  of  the  adorable  Trinity.  But  it 
must  be  received  as  substantial  truth.  The  Father  did  give  the 
Son  a  work  to  do,  and  He  did  promise  to  Him  a  reward  upon  its 
accomplishment.  The  transaction  was,  therefore,  of  the  nature  of 
a  covenant.  An  obligation  was  assumed  by  the  Son  to  accomplish 
the  work  assigned  Him ;  and  an  obligation  was  assumed  by  the 
Father  to  grant  Him  the  stipulated  reward.  The  infinitude  of 
God  does  not  prevent  these  things  being  possible. 

As  the  exhibition  of  the  work  of  Christ  in  the  redemption  of 
man  constitutes  a  large  part  of  the  task  of  the  theologian,  all  that 
is  proper  in  this  place  is  a  simple  reference  to  the  Scriptural  state- 
ments on  the  subject. 

The  Work  assigned  to  the  Redeemer. 

(1.)  He  was  to  assume  our  nature,  humbling  Himself  to  be  born 
of  a  woman,  and  to  be  found  in  fashion  as  a  man.  This  was  to  be 
a  real  incarnation,  not  a  mere  theophany  such  as  occurred  repeat- 
edly under  the  old  dispensation.  He  was  to  become  flesh  ;  to  take 
part  of  flesh  and  body ;  to  be  bone  of  our  bone  and  flesh  of  our 
flesh,  made  In  all  things  like  unto  his  brethren,  yet  without  sin, 
that  He  might  be  touched  with  a  sense  of  our  infirmities,  and  able 
to   sympathize   with   those  who  are   tempted,  being  Himself  also 


362   PART  III.  Ch.  II.  —  THE  COVENANT  OF  GRACE. 

tempted.  (2.)  He  was  to  be  made  under  the  law,  voluntarily 
undertaking  to  fulfil  all  righteousness  by  obeying  the  law  of  God 
perfectly  in  all  the  forms  in  which  it  had  been  made  obligatory  on 
man.  (3.)  He  was  to  bear  our  sins,  to  be  a  curse  for  us,  offering 
Himself  as  a  sacrifice,  or  propitiation  to  God  in  expiation  of  the  sins 
of  men.  This  involved  his  whole  life  of  humiliation,  sorrow,  and 
suffering,  and  his  ignominious  death  upon  the  cross  under  the 
hiding  of  his  Father's  countenance.  What  He  was  to  do  after  this 
pertains  to  his  exaltation  and  reward. 

The  Promises  made  to  the  Redeemer. 

Such,  in  general  terms,  was  the  work  which  the  Son  of  God 
undertook  to  perform.  The  promises  of  the  Father  to  the  Son 
conditioned  on  the  accomplishment  of  that  work,  were,  (1.)  That 
He  would  prepare  Him  a  body,  fit  up  a  tabernacle  for  Him, formed 
as  was  the  body  of  Adam  by  the  immediate  agency  of  God.  uncon- 
taminated  and  without  spot  or  blemish.  (2.)  That  He  would  give 
the  Spirit  to  Him  without  measure,  that  his  whole  human  nature 
should  be  replenished  with  grace  and  strength,  and  sc  adorned 
with  the  beauty  of  holiness  that  He  should  be  altogether  lovely. 
(3.)  That  He  would  be  ever  at  his  right  hand  to  support  and 
comfort  Him  in  the  darkest  hours  of  his  conflict  witii  the  powers 
of  darkness,  and  that  He  would  ultimately  bruise  Satan  under  his 
feet.  (4.)  That  He  would  deliver  Him  from  the  power  of  death, 
and  exalt  Him  to  his  own  right  hand  in  heaven ;  and  tliat  all  power 
in  heaven  and  earth  should  be  committed  to  Him.  (o.)  That  He, 
as  the  Theanthropos  and  head  of  the  Church,  should  have  tho  Holy 
Spirit  to  send  to  whom  He  willed,  to  renew  their  hearts,  to  satisfy 
and  comfort  them,  and  to  qualify  them  for  his  service  and  kingdom. 
(6.)  That  all  given  to  Him  by  the  Father  should  come  to  Him, 
and  be  kept  by  Him,  so  that  none  of  them  should  be  lost.  (7.)  That 
a  multitude  whom  no  man  can  number  should  thus  be  made  par- 
takers of  his  redemption,  and  that  ultimately  the  kingdom  of  the 
Messiah  should  embi-ace  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.  (8.)  That 
through  Christ,  in  Him,  and  in  his  ransomed  Church,  there  should 
be  made  the  highest  manifestation  of  the  divine  perfections  to  all 
orders  of  holy  intelligences  throughout  eternity.  The  Son  of  God 
was  thus  to  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul  and  be  satisfied. 

§  5.    The  Covenant  of  Grace. 
In  virtue  of  what  the  Son  of  God  covenanted  to  perform,  and 
what  in  the  fulness  of  time  He  actually  accomplished,  agreeably  to 


§5.]  COVENANT  OF   GRACE.  363 

the  stipulations  of  the  compact  with  the  Father,  two  things  follow. 
First,  salvation  is  offered  to  all  men  on  the  condition  of  faith  in 
Christ.  Our  Lord  commanded  his  disciples  to  go  into  all  the  world 
and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  The  gospel,  however,  is 
the  offer  of  salvation  upoii  the  conditions  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 
In  this  sense,  the  covenant  of  grace  is  formed  with  all  mankind. 
And,  therefore,  Turrettin  ^  says,  "  Foedus  hoc  gratiae  est  pactum 
gratuitum  inter  Deum  offensum  et  hominem  offendentem  in  Christo 
initum,  in  quo  Deus  homini  gratis  propter  Christum  remissionem 
peccatorum  et  salutem  pollicetur,  homo  vero  eadem  gratia  fretus 
pollicetur  fidem  et  obedientiam."  And  the  Westminster  Confession  ^ 
says,  "Man,  by  his  fall,  having  made  himself  incapable  of  life  by  that 
covenant  [namely,  by  the  covenant  of  works],  the  Lord  was  pleased 
to  make  a  second,  commonly  called  the  covenant  of  grace  :  wherein 
He  freely  offereth  unto  sinners  [and  all  sinners]  life  and  salvation 
by  Jesus  Christ,  requiring  of  them  faith  in  Him,  that  they  may  be 
saved,  and  promising  to  give  unto  all  those  that  are  ordained  unto 
life,  his  Holy  Spirit,  to  make  them  able  and  vvilling  to  believe."  If 
this,  therefore,  were  all  that  is  meant  by  those  who  make  the  parties 
to  the  covenant  of  grace,  God  and  mankind  in  genei'al  and  all 
mankind  equally,  there  would  be  no  objection  to  the  doctrine.  For 
it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  God  offers  to  all  and  every  man  eternal 
life  on  condition  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  But  as  it  is  no  less  true 
that  the  whole  scheme  of  redemption  has  special  reference  to  those 
given  by  the  Father  to  the  Son,  and  of  whom  our  Lord  says,  "All 
that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to  me  ;  and  him  that  cometh 
to  me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out"  (John  vi.  37),  it  follows,  secondly, 
from  the  nature  of  the  covenant  between  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
that  the  covenant  of  grace  has  also  special  reference  to  the  elect. 
To  them  God  has  promised  to  give  his  Spirit  in  order  that  they 
may  believe  ;  and  to  them  alone  all  the  promises  made  to  believers 
belong.  Those  who  ignore  the  distinction  between  the  covenants 
of  redemption  and  of  grace,  merging  the  latter  in  the  former,  of 
course  represent  the  parties  to  the  covenant  to  be  God  and  Christ 
as  the  head  and  representative  of  his  own  people.  And  therefore 
mankind,  as  such,  are  in  no  sense  parties.  All  that  is  important 
is,  that  we  should  adopt  such  a  mode  of  representation  as  will 
comprehend  the  various  facts  recognized  in  the  Scriptui'es.  It  is 
one  of  those  facts  that  salvation  is  offered  to  all  men  on  the  condition 
of  faith  in  Christ.  And  therefore  to  that  extent,  or,  in  a  sense 
which  accounts  for  that  fact,  the  covenant  of  grace  is  made  with 

1  xn.  ii.  5,  edit.  Edinburgh,  1847,  vol.  ii.  p.  156.  2  Chap.  vii.  §  3. 


364  PART  m.  Ch.  II.  — the  covenant  of  grace.  . 

all  men.  The  great  sin  of  those  who  hear  the  gospel  is  that  they 
refuse  to  accept  of  that  covenant,  and  therefore  place  themselves 
w^ithout  its  pale. 

Christ  as  Mediator  of  the  Covenant. 

As  Christ  is  a  party  to  the  covenant  of  redemption,  so  He  is  con- 
stantly represented  as  the  mediator  of  the  covenant  of  grace  ;  not 
only  in  the  sense  of  an  internuncius,  as  Moses  was  a  mediator 
between  God  and  the  people  of  Israel,  but  in  the  sense,  (1.)  That 
it  was  through  his  intervention,  and  solely  on  the  ground  of  what 
He  had  done,  or  promised  to  do,  that  God  entered  into  this  new 
covenant  with  fallen  men.  And,  (2.)  in  the  sense  of  a  surety. 
He  guarantees  the  fulfilment  of  all  the  promises  and  conditions  of 
the  covenant.  His  blood  was  the  blood  of  the  covenant.  That  is, 
his  death  had  all  the  effects  of  a  federal  sacrifice,  it  not  only  bound 
the  parties  to  the  contract,  but  it  also  secured  the  fulfilment  of  all 
its  provisions.  Hence  He  is  called  not  only  Mco-iVj/s,  but  also'Eyyvos 
(Heb.  vii.  22),  a  sponsor,  or  surety/.  By  fulfilling  the  conditions  on 
which  the  promises  of  the  covenant  of  redemption  were  suspended, 
the  veracity  and  justice  of  God  are  pledged  to  secure  the  salvation 
of  his  people  ;  and  this  secures  the  fidelity  of  his  people.  So  that 
Christ  answers  both  for  God  and  man.  His  work  renders  certain 
the  gifts  of  God's  grace,  and  the  perseverance  of  his  people  in  faith 
and  obedience.     He  is  therefore,  in  every  sense,  our  salvation. 

The  Condition  of  the  Covenant. 

The  condition  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  so  far  as  adults  are  con- 
cerned, is  faith  in  Christ.  That  is,  in  order  to  partake  of  the 
benefits  of  this  covenant  we  must  receive  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as 
the  Son  of  God  in  whom  and  for  whose  sake  its  blessings  are 
vouchsafed  to  the  cliildren  of  men.  Until  we  thus  believe  we  are 
aliens  and  strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promise,  without  God 
and  without  Christ.  We  must  acquiesce  in  this  covenant,  renoun- 
cing all  other  methods  of  salvation,  and  consenting  to  be  saved  on 
the  terms  which  it  proposes,  before  we  are  made  partakers  of  its 
benefits.  The  word  "  condition,"  however,  is  used  in  two  senses. 
Sometimes  it  means  the  meritorious  consideration  on  the  ground 
of  which  certain  benefits  are  bestowed.  In  this  sense  perfect 
obedience  was  the  condition  of  the  covenant  originally  made  with 
Adam.  Had  he  retained  his  integrity  he  would  have  merited  the 
promised  blessing.  For  to  him  that  worketh  the  reward  is  not  of 
grace  but  of  debt.     In  the  same  sense  the  work  of  Christ  is  the 


§5.]  COVENANT   OF   GRACE.  365 

condition  of  the  covenant  of  redemption.  It  was  the  meritorious 
ground,  laying  a  foundation  in  justice  for  the  fulfilment  of  the 
promises  made  to  Him  by  the  Father.  But  in  other  cases,  by 
condition  we  merely  mean  a  sine  qua  non.  A  blessing  may  be 
pi'omised  on  condition  that  it  is  asked  for ;  or  that  there  is  a  will- 
ingness to  receive  it.  There  is  no  merit  in  the  asking  or  in  the 
willingness,  which  is  the  ground  of  the  gift.  It  remains  a  gratui- 
tous favour :  but  it  is,  nevertheless,  suspended  upon  the  act  of 
asking.  It  is  in  this  last  sense  only  that  faith  is  the  condition  of 
the  covenant  of  grace.  There  is  no  merit  in  believing.  It  is  only 
the  act  of  receiving  a  proffered  favour.  In  either  case  the  necessity 
is  equally  absolute.  Without  the  work  of  Christ  there  would  be 
no  salvation ;  and  without  faith  there  is  no  salvation.  He  that 
believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life.  He  that  believeth  not, 
shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him. 

The  Promises  of  the  Covenant. 

The  promises  of  this  covenant  are  all  included  in  the  comprehen- 
sive formula,  so  often  occurring  in  the  Scriptures,  "  I  will  be  your 
God,  and  ye  shall  be  my  people."  This  involves  the  complete 
restoration  of  our  normal  relation  to  God.  All  ground  of  aliena- 
tion, every  bar  to  fellowship  is  removed.  He  communicates  Him- 
self in  his  fulness  to  his  people ;  and  they  become  his  by  entire 
conformity  to  his  will  and  devotion  to  his  service,  and  are  the 
special  objects  of  his  favour. 

God  is  said  to  be  our  God,  not  only  because  He  is  the  God 
whom  we  acknowledge  and  profess  to  worship  and  obey,  as  He  was 
the  God  of  the  Hebrews  in  distinction  from  the  Gentiles  who  did 
not  acknowledge  his  existence  or  profess  to  be  his  worshippers. 
But  He  is  our  God,  — our  infinite  portion  ;  the  source  to  us  of  all 
that  God  is  to  those  who  are  the  objects  of  his  love.  His  perfec- 
tions are  revealed  to  us  as  the  highest  knowledge ;  they  are  all 
pledged  for  our  protection,  blessedness,  and  glory.  His  beincr  our 
God  implies  also  that  He  assures  us  of  his  love,  and  admits  us 
to  communion  with  Himself.  As  his  favour  is  life,  and  his  loving 
kindness  better  than  life  ;  as  the  vision  of  God,  the  enjoyment  of 
his  love  and  fellowship  with  Him  secure  the  highest  possible  exalta- 
tion and  beatification  of  his  creatures,  it  is  plain  that  the  promise  to 
be  our  God,  in  the  Scriptural  sense  of  the  term,  includes  all  con- 
ceivable and  all  possible  good. 

When  it  is  said  that  we  are  to  be  his  people  it  means,  (1.)  That 
we  are  his  peculiar  possession.     His  delights  are  with  the  children 


366  PART  m.  Ch.  il  — the  covenant  of  grace. 

of  men.  From  the  vai'ious  orders  of  rational  creatures  He  lias 
chosen  man  to  be  the  special  object  of  his  favour,  and  the  special 
medium  through  which  and  by  which  to  manifest  his  glory.  And 
from  the  mass  of  fallen  men  He  has,  of  his  own  good  pleasure, 
chosen  an  innumerable  multitude  to  be  his  portion,  as  He  conde- 
scends to  call  them ;  on  whom  He  lavishes  the  plenitude  of  his 
grace,  and  in  whom  He  reveals  his  glory  to  the  admiration  of  all 
holy  intelligences.  (2.)  That  being  thus  selected  for  the  special 
love  of  God  and  for  the  highest  manifestation  of  his  glory,  they  are 
in  all  things  fitted  for  this  high  destiny.  They  are  justified,  sancti- 
fied, and  glorified.  They  are  rendered  perfectly  conformed  to  his 
image,  devoted  to  his  service,  and  obedient  to  his  will. 

§  6.   The  Identity  of  the  Covenant  of  Gfrace  under  all  Dispensa- 
tions. 

By  this  is  meant  that  the  plan  of  salvation  has,  under  all  dispen- 
sations, the  Patriarchal,  the  Mosaic,  and  the  Christian,  been  the 
same.  On  this  subject  much  diversity  of  opinion,  and  still  more 
of  mode  of  statement  has  prevailed.  Socinians  say  that  under  the 
old  economy,  there  was  no  promise  of  eternal  life  ;  and  that  the 
condition  of  salvation  was  not  faith  in  Christ.  The  Remonstrants 
admitted  that  the  patriarchs  were  saved,  and  that  they  were  saved 
through  Christ,  i.  e.,  in  virtue  of  the  work  which  the  Redeemer 
was  to  accomplish  ;  but  they  also  questioned  whether  any  direct 
promise  of  eternal  life  was  given  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  whether 
faith  in  the  Redeemer  was  the  condition  of  acceptance  with  God. 
On  this  subject  the  "  Apology  for  the  Confession  of  the  Remon- 
strants" says^  concerning  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  "Et  certum  esse 
locum  nullum  esse  unde  appareat  fidem  istam  sub  V.  T.  prasceptam 
fuisse,  aut  viguisse."  And  Episcopius ''^  says,  "Ex  his  facile  col- 
ligere  est,  quid  statuendum  sit  de  qucestione  ilia  faniosa,  An  vitae 
aeternae  promissio  etiam  in  Veteri  foedere  locum  habuerit,  vel  potius 
hi  foedere  ipso  comprehensa  fuerit.  Si  enim  speciales  promissiones 
in  foedere  ipso  veteri  expressae  videantur,  fatendum  est,  nullam  vitae 
aeternae  promissionem  disertam  in  illis  reperiri.  Si  quis  contra  sentiat, 
ejus  est  locum  dare  ubi  ilia  exstat :  quod  puto  impossibile  esse.  Sed 
vero,  si  promissiones  Dei  generales  videantur,  fatendum  ex  altera 
parte  est,  eas  tales  esse,  ut  promissio  vitae  aeternae  non  subesse  tan- 
tum  videatur,  sed  ex  Dei  intentione  earn  eis  subfuisse  etiam  credi 
debeat." 

1  Edit.  Leyden,  1630,  p.  91. 

2  Itulilutianes  Theologicoe,  lib.  ill.  iv.  1;    Works,  Amsterdam,  1650,  vol.  i.  p.  156. 


§  6.]       THE  IDENTITY    OF   THE   COVENANT   OF  GRACE.      367 

The  Baptists,  especially  those  of  the  time  of  the  Reformation, 
do  not  hold  the  common  doctrine  on  this  subject.  The  Anabaptists 
not  only  spoke  in  very  disparaging  terms  of  the  old  economy  and 
of  the  state  of  the  Jews  under  that  dispensation,  but  it  was  neces- 
sary to  their  peculiar  system,  that  they  should  deny  that  the  cov- 
enant made  with  Abraham  included  the  covenant  of  grace.  Bap- 
tists hold  that  infants  cannot  be  church  members,  and  that  the  sign 
of  such  membership  cannot  properly  be  administered  to  any  who 
have  not  knowledge  and  faith.  But  it  cannot  be  denied  that  in- 
fants were  included  in  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  and  that 
they  received  circumcision,  its  appointed  seal  and  sign.  It  is  there- 
fore essential  to  their  theory  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  should 
be  I'egarded  as  a  merely  national  covenant  entirely  distinct  from  the 
covenant  of  grace. 

The  Romanists  assumino;  that  saving  grace  is  communicated 
through  the  sacraments,  and  seeing  that  the  mass  of  tlie  ancient 
Israelites,  on  many  occasions  at  least,  were  rejected  of  God,  not- 
withstanding their  participation  of  the  sacraments  then  ordained, 
were  driven  to  assume  a  radical  difference  between  the  sacraments 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  those  of  the  New.  The  former  only 
signified  grace,  the  latter  actually  conveyed  it.  From  this  it  fol- 
lows that  those  living  before  the  institution  of  the  Christian  sacra- 
ments were  not  actually  saved.  Their  sins  were  not  remitted,  but 
pretermitted,  passed  over.  At  death  they  were  not  admitted  into 
heaven,  but  passed  into  a  place  and  state  called  the  limhus  patrum^ 
where  they  remained  in  a  negative  condition  until  the  coming  of 
Christ,  who  after  his  death  descended  to  hell,  sheol,  for  their  de- 
liverance. 

In  opposition  to  these  different  views  the  common  doctrine  of  the 
Church  has  ever  been,  that  the  plan  of  salvation  has  been  the  same 
from  the  beginning.  There  is  the  same  promise  of  deliverance 
from  the  evils  of  the  apostasy,  the  same  Redeemer,  the  same  con- 
dition required  for  participation  in  the  blessings  of  redemption,  and 
the  same  complete  salvation  for  all  who  embrace  the  offers  of  divine 
mercy. 

In  determining  the  degree  of  knowledge  possessed  by  the  ancient 
people  of  God,  we  are  not  to  be  governed  by  our  own  capacity  of 
discovering  from  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  the  doctrines  of 
grace.  What  amount  of  supplementary  instruction  the  people  re- 
ceived from  the  prophets,  or  what  degree  of  divine  illumination 
was  granted  to  them  we  cannot  tell.  It  is,  however,  clear  from 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  that  the  knowledge  of  the 


368  PART  m.  Ch.  n.  — the  covenant  of  grace. 

plan  of  salvation  current  among  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  the  advent, 
was  much  greater  than  we  should  deem  possible  from  the  mere 
perusal  of  the  Old  Testament.  They  not  only  generally  and  con- 
fidently expected  the  Messiah,  who  was  to  be  a  teacher  as  well  as 
a  deliverer,  but  the  devout  Jews  waited  for  the  salvation  of  Israel. 
They  spoke  as  familiarly  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  of  the  baptism 
which  He  was  to  effect,  as  Christians  now  do.  It  is,  principally, 
from  the  assertions  of  the  New  Testament  writers  and  from  their 
expositions  of  the  ancient  Scriptures,  that  we  learn  the  amount  of 
truth  revealed  to  those  who  lived  before  the  coming  of  Christ. 

From  the  Scriptures,  therefore,  as  a  whole,  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  from  the  Old  as  interpreted  by  infallible  authority  in  the 
New,  we  learn  that  the  plan  of  salvation  has  always  been  one  and 
the  same ;  having  the  same  promise,  the  same  Saviour,  the  same 
condition,  and  the  same  salvation. 

The  Promise  of  Eternal  Life  made  before  the  Advent. 

That  the  promise  was  the  same  to  those  who  lived  before  the 
advent  that  it  is  to  us,  is  plain.  Immediately  after  the  fall  God 
gave  to  Adam  the  promise  of  redemption.  That  promise  was 
contained  in  the  prediction  that  the  seed  of  the  woman  should 
bruise  the  serpent's  head.  In  this  passage  it  is  clear  that  the  ser- 
pent is  Satan.  He  was  the  tempter,  and  on  him  the  curse  pro- 
nounced was  designed  to  fall.  Bruising  his  head  implies  fatal 
injury  or  overthrow.  The  prince  of  darkness  who  had  triumphed 
over  our  first  parents,  was  to  be  cast  down,  and  despoiled  of  his 
victory.  This  overthrow  was  to  be  accomplished  by  the  seed  of 
the  woman.  This  phrase  might  mean  the  posterity  of  the  woman, 
and  in  this  sense  would  convey  an  important  truth ;  man  was  to 
triumph  over  Satan.  But  it  evidently  had  a  more  specific  reference. 
It  refers  to  one  individual,  who  in  a  sense  peculiar  to  himself,  was 
to  be  the  seed  of  the  woman.  This  is  clear  from  the  analogy  of 
prophecy.  When  it  was  promised  to  Abraham  that  in  his  seed  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed ;  it  would  be  very 
natural  to  understand  by  seed  his  posterity,  the  Hebrew  people. 
But  we  know  certainly,  from  the  direct  assertion  of  the  Apostle 
(Gal.  iii.  10),  that  one  individual,  namely,  Christ,  was  intended. 
So  when  Isaiah  predicts  that  the  "  servant  of  the  Lord  "  was  to 
suffer,  to  triumph,  and  to  be  the  source  of  blessings  to  all  people, 
many  understood,  and  many  still  understand  him  to  speak  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  as  God  so  often  speaks  of  his  servant  Israel.  Yet 
the  servant  intended  was  the   Messiah,  and  the  people  were  no 


§  6.]       THE  IDENTITY  OF  THE   COVENANT   OF   GRACE.       369 

further  included  in  the  prediction  than  when  it  is  said  that  "  salva- 
tion is  of  the  Jews."  In  all  these  and  similar  cases  we  have  two 
guides  as  to  the  real  meaning  of  the  Spirit.  The  one  is  found  in 
subsequent  and  explanatory  declarations  of  the  Scriptures,  the  other 
is  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  predictions.  We  know  from  the  event 
who  the  seed  of  the  woman  ;  who  the  seed  of  Abraham  ;  who  the 
Shiloh  ;  who  the  Son  of  David ;  who  the  servant  of  the  Lord  Avere  ; 
for  in  Christ  and  by  Him  was  fulfilled  all  that  was  predicted  of 
them.  The  seed  of  the  woman  was  to  bruise  the  serpent's  head. 
But  it  was  Christ,  and  Christ  alone,  who  came  into  the  world  to 
destroy  the  works  of  the  Devil.  This  he  declared  to  be  the  purpose 
of  his  mission.  Satan  was  the  strong  man  armed  whom  Christ 
came  to  dispossess  and  to  deliver  from  him  those  who  were  led 
captive  by  him  at  his  will.  We  have,  then,  the  promise  of  redemp- 
tion made  to  our  first  pai'ents  immediately  after  the  fall,  to  be  by 
them  communicated  to  their  descendants  to  be  kept  in  perpetual 
remembrance.  This  promise  was  repeated  and  amplified  from  time 
to  time,  until  the  Redeemer  actually  came.  In  these  additional 
and  fuller  predictions,  the  nature  of  this  redemption  was  set  forth 
with  ever  increasing  clearness.  This  general  promise  included 
many  specific  promises.  Thus  we  find  God  promising  to  his  faith- 
ful people  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins,  restoration  to  his  favour, 
the  renewing  of  their  hearts,  and  the  gift  of  his  Spirit.  No  higher 
blessings  than  these  are  oflfered  under  the  Christian  dispensation. 
And  for  these  blessings  the  ancient  people  of  God  earnestly  longed 
and  prayed.  The  Old  Testament,  and  especially  the  Psalms  and 
other  devotional  parts  of  the  early  Scriptures,  are  filled  with  the 
record  of  such  prayers  and  longings.  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than 
that  pardon  and  the  favour  of  God  were  promised'  to  holy  men 
before  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  these  are  the  blessings  which  are 
now  promised  to  us. 

The  Apostle  in  Heb.  xi.  teaches  that  the  hopes  of  the  patriarchs 
were  not  confined  to  the  present  life,  but  were  fixed  on  a  future 
state  of  existence.  Such  a  state,  therefore,  must  have  been  revealed 
to  them,  and  eternal  life  must  have  been  promised  to  them.  Thus 
he  says  (chapter  xi.  10),  that  Abraham  "  looked  for  the  city  which 
hath  foundations,  whose  builder  and  maker  is  God."  That  this  was 
heaven  is  plain  from  verse  16,  where  it  is  said,  "  They  desire  a 
better  country,  that  is,  an  heavenly :  wherefore  God  is  not  ashamed 
to  be  called  their  God  ;  for  He  hath  prepared  for  them  a  city." 
He  tells  us  that  these  ancient  worthies  gladly  sacrificed  all  earthly 
good,  and  even  life  itself,  "  not  accepting  deliverance ;  that  they 

VOL.  II.  24 


370  PART  m.  Ch.  II.  — the  covenant  of  grace. 

mio;ht  obtain  a  better  resurrection."  That  this  was  the  common 
faith  of  the  Jews  long  before  the  coming  of  Christ  appears  from  2 
Mace.  vii.  9,  where  the  dying  martyr  says  to  his  tormentor,  "  Thou 
like  a  fury  takest  us  out  of  this  present  life,  but  the  King  of  the 
world  shall  raise  us  up,  who  have  died  for  his  laws,  unto  everlast- 
ing life."  Our  Lord  teaches  us  that  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob 
are  still  alive  ;  and  that  where  Abraham  is,  is  heaven.  His  bosom 
was  the  resting-place  of  the  faithful. 

Christy  the  Redeemer,  under  both  Dispensations. 

This  is  a  very  imperfect  exhibition  of  the  evidence  which  the 
Scriptures  afford  that  the  promise  of  redemption,  and  of  all  that 
redemption  includes,  pardon,  sanctification,  the  favour  of  God,  and 
eternal  life,  was  made  to  the  people  of  God  from  the  beginning.  It 
is  no  less  clear  that  the  Redeemer  is  the  same  under  all  dispensa- 
tions. He  who  was  predicted  as  the  seed  of  the  woman,  as  the  seed 
of  Abraham,  the  Son  of  David,  the  Branch,  the  Servant  of  the  Lord, 
the  Prince  of  "Peace,  is  our  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  God 
manifest  in  the  flesh.  He,  therefore,  from  the  beginning  has  been 
held  up  as  the  hope  of  the  world,  the  Salvator  hominum.  He 
was  set  forth  in  all  his  offices,  as  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King.  His 
work  was  described  as  a  sacrifice,  as  well  as  a  redemption.  All 
this  is  so  obvious,  and  so  generally  admitted,  as  to  render  the  cita- 
tion of  proof  texts  unnecessary.  It  is  enough  to  refer  to  the  general 
declarations  of  the  New  Testament  on  this  subject.  Our  Lord 
commanded  the  Jews  to  search  their  Scriptures,  because  they  tes- 
tified of  Him.  He  said  that  Moses  and  the  prophets  wrote  of  Him. 
Beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets,  He  expounded  to  the 
disciples  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning  Himself.  The 
Apostles  when  they  began  to  preach  the  gospel,  not  only  ever}'- 
where  proved  from  the  Scriptures  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  but 
they  referred  to  them  continually  in  support  of  everything  which 
they  taught  concerning  his  person  and  his  work.  It  is  from  the  Old 
Testament  they  prove  his  dlvinit}^ ;  his  incarnation  ;  the  sacrificial 
natui'e  of  his  death ;  that  He  was  truly  a  Priest  to  make  reconcilia- 
tion for  the  people,  as  well  as  a  Prophet  and  a  King  ;  and  that  He 
was  to  die,  to  rise  again  on  the  third  day,  to  ascend  into  heaven, 
and  to  be  invested  with  absolute  authority  over  all  the  earth,  and 
over  all  orders  of  created  beings.  There  is  not  a  doctrine  concern- 
ing Christ,  taught  in  the  New  Testament,  which  the  Apostles  do 
not  affirm  to  have  been  revealed  under  former  dispensations.  They 
therefore  distinctly  assert  that  it  was  through  Him  and  the  efficacy 


§  6.]        THE   IDENTITY   OF   THE   COVENANT  OF   GRACE.      371 

of  his  death  that  men  were  saved  before,  as  well  as  after  his 
advent.  The  Apostle  Paul  says  (Rom.  iii.  25),  that  Christ  was 
set  forth  as  a  propitiation  for  the  remission  of  sins,  not  only  if  t<5 
vvv  Kaipw  but  also  of  the  sins  committed  before  the  present  time, 
during  the  forbearance  of  God.  And  in  Heb.  ix.  15,  it  is  still  more 
explicitly  asserted  that  He  died  for  the  forgiveness  of  sin  under  the 
first  covenant.  He  was,  therefore,  as  said  in  Rev.  xiii.  8,  the 
Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  Tiiis  is  at  least  the 
common  and  most  natural  interpretation  of  that  passage. 

Such  a  revelation  of  the  Messiah  was  undoubtedly  made  in  the 
Old  Testament  as  to  turn  the  eyes  of  the  whole  Jewish  nation  in 
hope  and  faith.  What  the  two  disciples  on  the  way  to  Emmaus 
said,  "  We  trusted  it  had  been  He  who  should  have  redeemed 
Israel,"  reveals  what  was  the  general  expectation  and  desire  of  the 
people.  Paul  repeatedl}''  speaks  of  the  Messiah  as  the  hope  of 
Israel.  The  promise  of  redemption  through  Christ,  he  declared  to 
be  the  great  object  of  the  people's  hope.  When  arraigned  before 
the  tribunals  of  the  Jews,  and  before  Agrippa,  he  uniformly  de- 
clared that  in  preaching  Christ  and  the  resurrection,  he  had  not 
departed  from  the  religion  of  the  fathers,  but  adhered  to  it,  while 
his  enemies  had  deserted  it.  "  Now  I  stand,  and  am  judged,"  he 
says,  "  for  the  hope  of  the  promise  made  of  God  unto  our  fathers." 
(Acts  xxvi.  6.)  Again  he  said  to  the  Jews  in  Rome,  Acts  xxviii. 
20,  "  For  the  hope  of  Israel  I  am  bound  with  this  chain."  See, 
also,  xxiii.  6  ;  xxiv.  15.  In  Eph.  i.  12,  he  designates  the  Jews  as 
ot  TrporiX-TTLKOTes  €v  Tw  X/atoTTw,  those  who  hoped  in  the  Messiah  before 
his  advent.  In  Acts  xiii.  7,  he  says  the  rulers  of  the  Jews  rejected 
Christ  because  they  knew  not  "  the  voices  of  the  prophets  wliich 
are  read  every  Sabbath  day,"  which  they  *'  fulfilled  in  condemning 
Him."  In  Him  Avas  "  the  promise  which  was  made  unto  the 
fathers,"  he  tells  us  (verses  32,  33),  of  which  he  says,  "  God  hath 
fulfilled  tlie  same  unto  us  their  children,  in  that  He  hath  raised  up 
(or  brought  into  view)  Jesus,"  the  long-expected  Saviour.  It  is 
needless  to  dwell  upon  this  point,  because  the  doctrine  of  a  personal 
Messiah  who  was  to  redeem  tlie  people  of  God,  not  only  pervades 
the  Old  Testament,  but  is  everywhere  in  the  New  Testament  de- 
clared to  be  the  great  promise  which  is  fulfilled  in  the  advent  and 
work  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Faith  the  Condition  of  Salvation  from  the  Beginning. 

As  the  same  promise  was  made  to  those  who  lived  before  the 
advent  which  is  now  made  to  us  in  the  gospel,  as  the  same  Redeemer 


372     PART  in.   ch.  n.  — the  covenant  of  grace. 

was  revealed  to  them  who  is  presented  as  the  object  of  faith  to  us, 
it  of  necessity  follows  that  the  condition,  or  terms  of  salvation,  was 
the  same  then  as  now.  It  was  not  mere  faith  or  trust  in  God,  or 
simply  piety,  which  was  required,  but  faith  in  the  promised  Re- 
deemer, or  faith  in  the  promise  of  redemption  through  the  Messiah. 

This  is  plain  not  only  from  the  considerations  just  mentioned,  but 
also  further,  (1.)  From  the  fact  that  the  Apostle  teaches  that  faith, 
not  works,  was  before  as  well  as  after  Christ  the  condition  of  salva- 
tion. This,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  he  not  only  asserts,  but 
proves.  He  argues  that  from  the  nature  of  the  case  the  justification 
of  sinners  by  works  is  a  contradiction.  If  sinners,  they  are  under 
condemnation  for  their  works,  and  tlierefore  cannot  be  justified  by 
them.  Moreover  he  proves  that  the  Old  Testament  everywhere 
speaks  of  gratuitous  forgiveness  and  acceptance  of  men  with  God ; 
but  if  gratuitous,  it  cannot  be  meritorious.  He  further  argues  from 
the  case  of  Abraham,  who,  according  to  the  express  declaration  of 
the  Scriptures,  was  justified  by  faith  ;  and  he  quotes  from  the  old 
prophets  the  great  principle,  true  then  as  now,  that  the  "just  shall 
live  by  faith."  (2.)  In  the  second  place,  he  proves  that  the  faith 
intended  was  faith  in  a  promise  and  not  merely  general  piety  or 
confidence  toward  God.  Abraham,  he  says,  "staggered  not  at  tho 
promise  of  God  through  unbelief;  but  was  strong  in  faith,  giving 
glory  to  God ;  and  being  fully  persuaded  that  what  He  had  prom- 
ised He  was  able  also  to  perform."  (Rom.  iv.  20,  21.)  (3.)  The 
Apostle  proves  that  the  specific  promise  which  was  the  object  of  the 
faith  of  the  patriarch  was  the  promise  of  redemption  through  Christ. 
That  promise  they  were  required  to  believe  ;  and  that  the  true 
people  of  God  did  believe.  The  mass  of  the  people  mistook  the 
nature  of  the  redemption  promised  ;  but  even  in  their  case  it  was 
the  promise  of  redemption  which  was  the  object  of  their  foith. 
Those  taught  by  the  Spirit  knew  that  it  was  a  redemption  from  the 
guilt  and  power  of  sin  and  from  the  consequent  alienation  from  God. 
In  Gal.  iii.  14,  the  Apostle  therefore  says  that  the  blessing  promised 
to  Abraham  has  come  upon  the  Gentiles.  That  blessing,  therefore, 
was  that  which  through  the  gospel  is  now  offered  to  all  men. 

Not  only,  therefore,  from  these  explicit  declarations  that  faith  in 
the  promised  Redeemer  was  required  from  the  beginrn'ng,  but  from 
the  admitted  fact  that  the  Old  Testament  is  full  of  the  doctrine  of 
redemption  by  the  Messiah,  it  follows  that  those  who  received  the 
relio-ion  of  the  Old  Testament  received  that  doctrine,  and  exercised 
faith  in  the  promise  of  God  concerning  his  Son.  The  Epistle  to  tlie 
Hebrews  is  designed  in  great  part  to  show  that  the  whole  of  the  Old 


§  7.]  DIFFERENT  DISPENSATIONS.  373 

dispensation  was  an  adumbration  of  the  New,  and  that  it  loses  all 
its  value  and  import  if  its  reference  to  Christ  be  ignored.  To  denj, 
therefore,  that  the  faith  of  the  Old  Testament  saints  was  a  faith  in 
the  Messiah  and  his  redempticm,  is  to  deny  that  they  had  any  knowl- 
edge of  the  import  of  the  revelations  and  promises  of  which  they 
were  the  recipients. 

Paul,  in  Rom.  iii.  21,  says  that  the  method  of  salvation  revealed 
in  the  gospel  had  been  already  revealed  in  the  law  and  the  prophets; 
and  his  definite  object,  in  Gal.  iii.  13-28,  is  to  prove  that  the  cov- 
enant under  which  we  live  and  according  to  the  terms  of  which  we 
are  to  be  saved,  is  the  identical  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  in 
which  the  promise  of  redemption  was  made  on  the  condition  of  faith 
in  Him  in  whom  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed. 
This  is  a  covenant  anterior  to  the  Mosaic  law,  and  which  that  law 
could  not  set  aside  or  invalidate. 

The  covenant  of  grace,  or  plan  of  salvation,  being  the  same  in 
all  its  elements  from  the  beginning,  it  follows,  first,  in  opposition  to 
the  Anabaptists,  that  the  people  of  God  before  Christ  constituted  a 
Church,  and  that  the  Church  has  been  one  and  the  same  under  all 
dispensations.  It  has  always  had  the  same  promise,  the  same 
Redeemer,  and  the  same  condition  of  membership,  namely,  faith  in 
the  Son  of  God  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world. 

It  follows  from  the  same  premises,  in  opposition  to  the  Romanists, 
that  the  salvation  of  the  people  of  God  who  died  before  the  coming 
of  Christ,  was  complete.  Tliey  were  truly  pardoned,  sanctified, 
and,  at  death,  admitted  to  that  state  into  which  those  dying  in  the 
Christian  faith  ai-e  now  received.  This  is  confirmed  by  what  our 
Lord  and  the  Apostles  teach.  The  salvation  promised  us  is  that  on 
which  the  Old  Testament  saints  have  already  entered.  The  Gentile 
believers  are  to  sit  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob.  The 
bosom  of  Abraham  was  the  place  of  rest  for  all  the  faithful.  All 
that  Paul  claims  for  believers  under  the  gospel  is,  that  they  are 
the  sons  of  Abraham,  and  partakers  of  his  inheritance.  If  this  is 
so,  then  the  whole  ritual  theory  which  assumes  that  grace  and  sal- 
vation are  communicated  only  through  Christian  sacraments  must 
be  false. 

§  7.  Different  Dispensations, 

First,  from  Adam  to  Abraham. 
Although  the  covenant  of  grace  has  always  been  the  same,  the 
dispensations  of  that  covenant  have  changed.  The  ftrst  dispensation 
extended  from  Adam  to  Abraliam.     Of  tliis  period  we  have  so  few 


374  PART  m.  Ch.  II.— the  covenant  of  grace. 

records,  that  we  cannot  determine  liow  far  the  truth  was  revealed, 
or  wliat  measures  were  adopted  for  its  preservation.  All  we  know 
is,  that  the  original  promises  concerning  the  seed  of  the  woman,  as 
the  Redeemer  of  our  race,  had  been  given  ;  and  that  the  worship 
of  God  by  sacrifices  had  been  instituted.  That  sacrifices  were  a 
divine  institution,  and  designed  to  teach  the  method  of  salvation, 
may  be  inferred,  (1.)  From  the  fact  that  it  is  the  method  which  the 
common  consciousness  of  men  has  everywhere  led  them  to  adopt. 
It  is  that  which  their  relation  to  God  as  sinners  demanded.  It  is 
the  dictate  of  conscience  that  guilt  requii'es  expiation  ;  and  that 
expiation  is  made  by  the  shedding  of  blood.  Sacrifices,  therefore, 
not  being  an  arbitrary  institution,  but  one  having  its  foundation  in 
our  real  relation  to  God  as  sinners,  we  may  infer  that  it  was  by  his 
command,  direct  or  indirect,  that  such  sacrifices  were  offered. 
(2.)  This  may  also  be  inferred  from  God's  approving  them,  adopt- 
ing them,  and  incorporating  them  in  the  religious  observances 
subsequently  enjoined.  (3.)  The  fact  that  man  was  to  be  saved  by 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  that  this  was  the  great  event  to  which 
the  institutions  of  the  earlier  dispensations  refer,  renders  it  clear 
that  this  reference  was  designed,  and  that  it  was  founded  upon  the 
institution  of  God. 

The  Second  Dispensation. 

The  second  dispensation  extended  from  Abraham  to  Moses. 
This  was  distinguished  from  the  former,  (1.)  By  the  selection  of 
the  descendants  of  Abraham  to  be  the  peculiar  people  of  God. 
They  were  chosen  in  order  to  preserve  the  knowledge  of  the  true 
religion  in  the  midst  of  the  general  apostasy  of  .mankind.  To  this 
end  special  revelations  were  made  to  them,  and  God  entered  into 
a  covenant  with  them,  promising  that  He  would  be  their  God,  and 
that  they  should  be  his  people.  (2.)  Besides  thus  gathering  his 
Church  out  of  the  world,  and  making  its  members  a  peculiar  peoj)le, 
distinguished  by  circumcision  from  the  Gentiles  around  them,  the 
promise  of  redemption  was  made  more  definite.  The  Redeemer 
was  to  be  of  the  seed  of  Abraham.  He  was  to  be  one  person.  The 
salvation  He  was  to  effect  should  pertain  to  all  nations.  (3.)  Sub- 
sequently it  was  made  known  that  the  Deliverer  was  to  be  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah. 

The  Third  Dispensation. 

The  third  dispensation  of  this  covenant  was  from  Moses  to  Christ. 
All  that  belonged  to  the  previous  periods  was  taken  up  and  included 
in  this.     A  multitude  of  new  ordinances  of  polity,  worship,  and 


§  7.]  DIFFERENT   DISPENSATIONS.  375 

religion  were  enjoined.  A  priesthood  and  a  complicated  system  of 
sacrifices  were  introduced.  The  promises  were  rendered  more  defi- 
nite, setting  forth  more  clearly  by  the  instructions  of  the  prophets 
the  person  and  work  of  the  coming  Redeemer  as  the  prophet,  priest, 
and  king  of  his  people.  The  nature  of  the  redemption  He  was  to 
effect  and  the  nature  of  the  kingdom  He  was  to  establish  were  thus 
more  and  more  clearly  revealed.  We  have  the  direct  autiiority  of 
the  New  Testament  for  believing  that  the  covenant  of  grace,  or 
plan  of  salvation,  thus  underlay  the  whole  of  the  institutions  of  the 
Mosaic  period,  and  that  their  principal  design  was  to  teach  through 
types  and  symbols  what  is  now  taught  in  explicit  terms  in  the 
gospel.  Moses,  we  are  told  (Heb.  iii.  5),  was  faithful  as  a  servant 
to  testify  concerning  the  things  which  were  to  be  spoken  after. 

Besides  this  evangelical  character  which  unquestionably  belongs 
to  the  Mosaic  covenant,  it  is  presented  in  two  other  aspects  in  the 
Word  of  God.  First,  it  was  a  national  covenant  with  the  Hebrew 
people.  In  this  view  the  parties  were  God  and  the  people  of  Israel; 
the  promise  was  national  security  and  prosperity;  the  condition  was 
the  obedience  of  the  people  as  a  nation  to  the  Mosaic  law ;  and  the 
mediator  was  Moses.  In  this  aspect  it  was  a  legal  covenant.  It 
said,  "  Do  this  and  live."  Secondly,  it  contained,  as  does  also  the 
New  Testament,  a  renewed  proclamation  of  the  original  covenant 
of  works.  It  is  as  true  now  as  in  the  days  of  Adam,  it  always  has 
been  and  always  must  be  true,  that  rational  creatures  who  perfectly 
obey  the  law  of  God  are  blessed  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  favour ; 
and  that  those  who  sin  are  subject  to  his  wrath  and  curse.  Our 
Lord  assured  the  young  man  who  came  to  Him  for  instruction  that 
if  he  kept  the  commandments  he  should  live.  And  Paul  says 
(Rom.  ii.  6)  that  God  will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his 
deeds  ;  tribulation  and  anguish  upon  every  soul  of  man  that  doeth 
evil ;  but  glory,  honour,  and  peace  to  every  man  who  worketh 
good.  This  arises  fi'om  the  relation  of  intelligent  creatures  to  God. 
It  is  in  fact  nothing  but  a  declaration  of  the  eternal  and  immutable 
principles  of  justice.  If  a  man  rejects  or  neglects  the  gospel,  these 
are  the  principles,  as  Paul  teaches  in  the  opening  chapters  of  his 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  according  to  which  he  will  be  judged.  If 
he  will  not  be  under  grace,  if  he  will  not  accede  to  the  method  of 
salvation  by  grace,  he  is  of  necessity  under  the  law. 

These  different  aspects  under  which  the  Mosaic  economy  is 
presented  account  for  the  apparently  inconsistent  way  in  which  it  is 
spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament.  (1.)  When  viewed  in  relation 
to  the  people  of  God  before  the  advent,  it  is  represented  as  divine 


376  PART  III.  ch.  n.  — the  covenant  of  grace. 

and  obligatory.  (2.)  When  viewed  in  relation  to  the  state  of  the 
Church  after  the  advent,  it  is  declared  to  be  obsolete.  It  is  repre- 
sented as  the  lifeless  husk  from  which  the  living  kernel  and  germ 
have  been  extracted,  a  body  from  which  the  soul  has  departed. 
(3.)  When  viewed  according  to  its  true  import  and  design  as  a 
preparatory  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  it  is  spoken  of  as 
teaching  the  same  gospel,  the  same  method  of  salvation  as  that 
which  the  Apostles  themselves  preached.  (4.)  When  viewed,  in 
the  light  in  which  it  was  regarded  by  those  who  rejected  the  gospel, 
as  a  mere  legal  system,  it  was  declared  to  be  a  ministration  of  death 
and  condemnation.  (2  Cor.  iii.  6-18.)  (5.)  And  when  contrasted 
with  the  new  or  Christian  economy,  as  a  different  mode  of  revealing 
the  same  covenant,  it  is  spoken  of  as  a  state  of  tutelage  and  bondage, 
far  different  from  the  freedom  and  filial  spirit  of  the  dispensation 
under  which  we  now  live. 

The  Crospel  Dispensation. 

The  gospel  dispensation  is  called  new  in  reference  to  the  Mosaic 
economy,  which  was  old,  and  about  to  vanish  away.  It  is  distin- 
guished from  the  old  economy,  — 

1.  In  being  catholic,  confined  to  no  one  people,  but  designed  and 
adapted  to  all  nations  and  to  all  classes  of  men. 

2.  It  is  more  spiritual,  not  only  in  that  the  types  and  ceremonies 
of  the  Old  Testament  are  done  away,  but  also  in  that  the  revela- 
tion itself  is  more  inward  and  spiritual.  What  was  then  made 
known  objectiA^ely,  is  now,  to  a  greater  extent,  written  on  the 
heart.  (Heb.  viii.  8-11.)  It  is  incomparably  more  clear  and 
explicit  in  its  teachings. 

4.  It  is  more  purely  evangelical.  Even  the  New  Testament,  as 
we  have  seen,  contains  a  legal  element,  it  reveals  the  law  still  as 
a  covenant  of  works  binding  on  those  who  reject  the  gospel ;  but  in 
the  New  Testament  the  gospel  greatly  predominates  over  the  law. 
Whereas,  under  the  Old  Testament,  the  law  predominated  over 
the  gospel. 

5.  The  Christian  economy  is  specially  the  dispensation  of  the 
Spirit.  The  great  blessing  promised  of  old,  as  consequent  on  the 
coming  of  Christ,  was  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit  on  all  flesh,  i.  e., 
on  all  nations  and  on  all  classes  of  men.  This  was  so  distinguish- 
ing a  characteristic  of  the  Messianic  period  that  the  evangelist 
says,  "  The  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  given,  because  that  Jesus 
was  not  yet  glorified."  (John  vii.  39.)  Our  Lord  promised  that 
after  his  death  and  ascension  He  would  send  the  Comforter,  the 


§  7.]  DIFFERENT  DISPENSATIONS.  377 

Spirit  of  truth,  to  abide  with  his  people,  to  guide  them  into  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  to  convince  the  world  of  sin,  of 
righteousness,  and  of  judgment  to  come.  He  charged  the  Apostles 
to  remain  at  Jerusalem  until  they  had  received  this  power  from  on 
high.  And  in  explanation  of  the  events  of  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
the  Apostle  Peter  said,  "  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up,  whereof 
we  all  are  witnesses.  Therefore  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God 
exalted,  and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear." 
(Acts  ii.  32,  33.) 

6.  The  old  dispensation  was  temporary  and  preparatory ;  the 
new  is  permanent  and  final.  In  sending  forth  his  disciples  to 
preach  the  gospel,  and  in  promising  them  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  He 
assured  them  that  He  would  be  with  them  in  that  work  unto  the 
end  of  the  world.  This  dispensation  is,  therefore,  the  last  before 
the  restoration  of  all  things  ;  the  last,  that  is,  designed  for  the 
conversion  of  men  and  the  ingathering  of  the  elect.  Afterwards 
comes  the  end ;  the  resurrection  and  tiie  final  judgment.  In  the 
Old  Testament  there  are  frequent  intimations  of  another  and  a 
better  economy,  to  which  the  Mosaic  institutions  were  merely 
preparatory.  But  we  have  no  intimation  in  Scripture  that  the 
dispensation  of  the  Spirit  is  to  give  way  for  a  new  and  better 
dispensation  for  the  conversion  of  the  nations.  When  the  gospel 
is  fully  preached,  then  comes  the  end. 


CHAPTER  III. 

PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 

§  1.  Preliminary  Remarks. 

1.  The  most  mysterious  and  the  most  familiar  fact  of  conscious- 
ness and  experience  is  the  union  of  soul  and  body  in  the  constitution 
of  our  nature.  According  to  the  common  faith  of  mankind  and  of 
the  Churcli,  man  consists  of  two  distinct  substances,  soul  and  body. 
By  substance  is  meant  that  which  is.  It  is  the  entity  in  which 
properties,  attributes,  and  qualities  inhere,  and  of  which  they  are 
the  manifestations.  It  is  therefore  something  more  than  mere  force. 
It  is  something  more  than  a  collective  name  for  a  certain  number  of 
properties  which  appear  in  combination.  It  is  that  which  continues, 
and  remains  unchanged  under  all  the  varying  phenomena  of  which 
it  may  be  the  subject.  The  substance  which  we  designate  the  soul, 
is  immaterial,  that  is,  it  has  none  of  the  properties  of  matter.  It  is 
spiritual,  i.  e.,  it  has  all  the  properties  of  a  spirit.  It  is  a  self- 
conscious,  intelligent,  voluntary  agent.  The  substance  which  we 
call  the  bofly,  on  the  other  hand,  is  material.  That  is,  it  has  all 
the  properties  of  matter  and  none  of  the  properties  of  mind  or  spirit. 
This  is  the  first  fact  universally  admitted  concerning  the  constitution 
of  our  nature. 

2.  The  second  fact  concerns  the  nature  of  the  union  between 
the  soul  and  body.  It  is,  (a.)  A  personal  union.  Soul  and  body 
constitute  one  individual  man,  or  human  person.  There  is  but 
one  consciousness.  It  is  the  man  or  person  who  is  conscious  of 
sensations  and  of  thoughts,  of  affections  of  the  body  and  of  the  acts 
of  the  mind.  (5.)  It  is  a  union  without  mixture  or  confusion.  The 
soul  remains  spirit,  and  the  body  remains  matter.  Copper  and 
zinc  combined  form  brass.  The  constituent  elements  lose  their 
distinctive  characteristics,  and  produce  a  third  substance.  There 
is  no  such  mixture  in  the  union  of  the  soul  and  body.  The 
two  remain  distinct.  Neither  is  there  a  transfer  of  any  of  the 
properties  of  the  one  to  the  other.  No  property  of  the  mind  is 
transferred  to  the  body  ;  and  no  property  of  the  body  is  transferred 
to  the  mind.     (<?.)  Nevertheless  the  union  is  not  a  mere  inhabita- 


§1.]  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  379 

tion,  a  union  of  contact  or  in  space.  The  soul  does  not  dwell  in 
the  body  as  a  man  dwells  in  a  house  or  in  his  garments.  Tiie  body 
is  part  of  himself,  and  is  necessary  to  his  completeness  as  a  man. 
He  is  in  every  part  of  it,  and  is  conscious  of  the  slightest  change  in 
the  state  of  even  the  least  important  of  its  members. 

3.  Thirdly,  the  consequences  of  this  union  of  the  soul  and 
body  are,  (a.)  A  Koivwvia  iSiw/xarajv,  or  communion  of  attributes. 
That  is,  the  person  is  the  possessor  of  all  the  attributes  both  of 
the  soul  and  of  the  body.  We  may  predicate  of  the  man  whatev^' 
may  be  predicated  of  his  body  ;  and  we  may  predicate  of  him  what- 
ever may  be  predicated  of  his  soul.  We  say  of  the  man  that  he  is 
tall  or  short ;  that  he  is  sick  or  well  ;  that  he  is  handsome  or  de- 
formed. In  like  manner,  we  may  say  that  he  is  judicious,  wise,  good, 
benevolent,  or  learned.  Whatever  is  true  of  either  element  of  his 
constitution  is  true  of  the  man.  What  is  true  of  the  one,  however, 
is  not  true  of  the  other.  When  the  body  is  wounded  or  burnt  it  is 
not  the  soul  that  is  the  subject  of  these  accidents  ;  and  when  the 
soul  is  penitent  or  believing,  or  enlightened  and  informed,  the  body 
is  not  the  subject  spoken  of.  Each  has  its  properties  and  changes, 
but  the  person  or  man  is  the  subject  of  them  all.  (6.)  Hence, 
inconsistent,  or  apparently  contradictory  affirmations  may  be  made 
of  the  same  person.  We  may  say  that  he  is  weak  and  that  he  is 
strong ;  that  he  is  mortal  and  immortal ;  that  he  is  a  spirit,  and 
that  he  is  dust  and  ashes,  (c.)  We  may  designate  the  man  from 
one  element  of  his  nature  when  what  we  predicate  of  him  is  true 
only  of  the  other  element.  We  may  call  liim  a  spirit  and  yet  say 
that  he  hungers  and  thirsts.  We  may  call  him  a  worm  of  the  dust 
when  we  speak  of  him  as  the  subject  of  regeneration.  That  is,  the 
person  may  be  designated  from  either  nature  when  the  pi'edicate 
belongs  to  the  other,  (c?.)  As  in  virtue  of  the  personal  union  of 
the  soul  and  body  all  the  properties  of  either  are  properties  of 
the  man,  so  all  the  acts  of  either  are  the  acts  of  the  man.  Some 
of  our  acts  are  purely  mental,  as  thinking,  repenting,  and  believing; 
some  are  purely  bodily,  as  the  processes  of  digestion,  assimilation, 
and  the  circulation  of  the  blood  ;  some  are  mixed,  as  all  voluntary 
acts,  as  walking,  speaking,  and  writing.  In  these  there  is  a  direct 
concurrence  or  cooperation  of  the  mind  and  body.  These  several 
classes  of  acts  are  acts  of  the  man.  It  is  the  man  who  thinks  ;  it  is 
the  man  who  speaks  and  writes ;  and  the  man  who  digests  and 
assimilates  his  food,  (g.)  A  fifth  consequence  of  this  hypostatic 
union  is  the  exaltation  of  the  body.  The  reason  why  the  body  of  a 
man  and  its  life  are  so  immeasurably  exalted  above  those  of  a  brute 


380      PART  m.   ch.  in.  — the  person  of  christ. 

is  that  it  is  in  personal  union  with  a  rational  and  immortal  soul.  It 
is  this  also  which  gives  the  body  its  dignity  and  beauty.  The 
gorgeous  plumage  of  the  bird,  or  the  graceful  symmetry  of  the 
antelope,  are  as  nothing  compared  to  the  erect  figure  and  intellect- 
ual beauty  of  man.  The  mind  irradiates  the  body,  and  imparts  to 
it  a  dignity  and  value  which  no  configuration  of  mere  matter  could 
possess.  At  the  same  time  the  soul  is  not  degraded  by  its  union 
with  the  body.  It  was  so  arrayed  before  the  fall,  and  is  to  be 
clothed  with  a  body  in  its  glorified  state  in  heaven. 

The  union  of  soul  and  body  in  the  constitution  of  man  is  the 
analogue  of  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  nature  in  the  person 
of  Christ.  No  analogy  is  expected  to  answer  in  all  points.  There 
is  in  this  case  enough  of  resemblance  to  sustain  faith  and  rebuke  un- 
belief. There  is  nothing  in  the  one  more  mysterious  or  inscrutable 
than  in  the  other.  And  as  the  difficulties  to  the  understanding  in 
the  union  of  two  distinct  substances,  matter  and  mind,  in  the  person 
of  man  have  induced  many  to  deny  the  plainest  facts  of  conscious- 
ness, so  the  difficulties  of  the  same  kind  attending  the  doctrine  of 
the  union  of  two  natures,  the  one  human  and  the  other  divine  in 
the  person  of  Christ,  have  led  many  to  reject  the  plainest  facts  of 
Scripture. 

§  2.   The  Scriptural  Facts  concerning  the  Person  of  Christ. 

The  facts  which  the  Bible  teaches  concerning  the  person  of  Christ 
are,  first,  that  He  was  truly  man,  i.  e.,  He  had  a  perfect  or  com- 
plete human  nature.  Hence  everything  that  can  be  predicated  of 
man  (that  is,  of  man  as  man,  and  not  of  man  as  fallen)  can  be  predi- 
cated of  Christ.  Secondly,  He  was  truly  God,  or  had  a  perfect 
divine  nature.  Hence  everything  that  can  be  predicated  of  God 
can  be  predicated  of  Christ.  Thirdly,  He  was  one  person.  The 
same  person,  self,  or  Ego,  who  said,  "  I  thirst,"  said,  "  Before 
Abraham  was,  I  am."  This  is  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  incarna- 
tion as  it  lies  in  the  Scriptures  and  in  the  faith  of  the  Church. 

Proof  of  the  Doctrine. 

The  proof  of  this  doctrine  includes  three  distinct  classes  of  pas- 
sages of  Scripture,  or  may  be  presented  in  three  different  forms. 
First,  the  proof  of  the  several  elements  of  the  doctrine  separately. 
Secondly,  the  current  language  of  the  Scriptures  which  speak  of 
Christ,  from  beginning  to  end,  sometimes  as  man  and  sometimes 
as  God;  and  combine  the  two  modes  of  statement,  or  pass  from  the 


§  2.]  THE   SCRIPTURAL  FACTS.  381 

one  to  the  other  as  naturally  and  as  easily  as  they  do  when  speaking 
of  man  as  mortal  and  immortal,  or  as  corporeal  and  as  spiritual. 
Thirdly,  there  are  certain  passages  of  Scripture  in  which  the  doc- 
trine of  the  incarnation  is  formally  presented  and  dogmatically 
asserted. 

First    Argument^   all   the  JElements   of  the  Doctrine    separately 

taught. 

First,  the  Scriptures  teach  that  Christ  was  truly  man,  or  had  a 
complete  human  nature.  That  is,  He  had  a  true  body  and  a  rational 
soul. 

Christ  had  a  True  Body. 

By  a  true  body  is  meant  a  material  body,  composed  of  flesh  and 
blood,  in  everything  essential  like  the  bodies  of  ordinary  men.  It 
was  not  a  phantasm,  or  mere  semblance  of  a  body.  Nor  was  it 
fashioned  out  of  any  heavenly  or  ethereal  substance.  This  is  plain 
because  He  was  born  of  a  woman.  He  was  conceived  in  the  womb 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  nourished  of  her  substance  so  as  to  be  consub- 
stantial  with  her.  His  body  increased  in  stature,  passing  through 
the  ordinary  process  of  development  from  infancy  to  manhood.  It 
was  subject  to  all  the  affections  of  a  human  body.  It  was  subject 
to  pain,  pleasure,  hunger,  thirst,  fatigue,  suffering,  and  death.  It 
could  be  seen,  felt,  and  handled.  The  Scriptures  declare  it  to  have 
been  flesh  and  blood.  "  Forasmuch  then  as  the  children  are  par- 
takers of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  likewise  took  part  of  the 
same."  (Hebrews  ii.  14.)  Our  Lord  said  to  his  terrified  disciples, 
"A  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  see  me  have."  (Luke 
xxiv.  39.)  He  was  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament  as  the  seed  of 
the  woman;  the  seed  of  Abraham;  the  Son  of  David.  He  was  de- 
clared to  be  a  man  ;  a  man  of  sorrows  ;  the  man  Christ  Jesus  ; 
and  He  called  Himself  the  Son  of  Man.  This  desig-nation  occurs 
some  eighty  times  in  the  Gospel.  Nothing,  therefore,  is  revealed 
concerning  Christ  more  distinctly  than  that  He  had  a  true  body. 

Christ  had  a  Rational  Soul. 

It  is  no  less  plain  that  He  had  a  rational  soul.  He  thought, 
reasoned,  and  felt ;  was  joyful  and  sorrowful  ;  He  increased  in 
wisdom;  He  was  ignorant  of  the  time  when  the  day  of  judgment 
should  come.  He  must,  therefore,  have  had  a  finite  human  intel- 
ligence. These  two  elements,  a  true  body  and  a  rational  soul, 
constitute  a  perfect  or  complete  human  nature,  which  is  thus  proved 
to  have  entered  into  the  composition  of  Christ's  person. 


382        PART  m.    Ch.  m. -the  person  of   CHRIST. 

Christ  is  truly  God. 
Secondly,  the  Scriptures,  with  equal  clearness,  declare  that 
Christ  was  truly  God.  This  has  been  already  proved  at  length. 
All  divine  names  and  titles  are  applied  to  Him.  He  is  called  God, 
the  mighty  God,  the  great  God,  God  over  all ;  Jehovah ;  Lord ; 
the  Lord  of  lords  and  the  King  of  kings.  All  divine  attributes 
are  ascribed  to  Him.  He  is  declared  to  be  omnipresent,  omniscient, 
almighty,  and  immutable,  the  same  yesterday,  Jo-day,  and  forever. 
He  is  set  forth  as  the  creator  and  upholder  and  ruler  of  the  universe. 
All  things  were  created  by  Him  and  for  Him  ;  and  by  Him  all 
things  consist.  He  is  the  object  of  worship  to  all  intelligent  crea- 
tures, even  the  highest;  all  the  angels  (^.  e.,  all  creatures  between 
man  and  God)  are  commanded  to  prostrate  themselves  before  Him. 
He  is  the  object  of  all  the  religious  sentiments ;  of  reverence,  love, 
faith,  and  devotion.  To  Him  men  and  angels  are  responsible  for 
their  character  and  conduct.  He  required  that  men  should  honour 
Him  as  they  honoured  the  Father  ;  that  they  should  exercise  the 
same  faith  in  Him  that  they  do  in  God.  He  declares  that  He  and 
the  Father  are  one  ;  that  those  who  had  seen  Him  had  seen  the 
Father  also.  He  calls  all  men  unto  him;  promises  to  forgive  their 
sins ;  to  send  them  the  Holy  Spirit ;  to  give  them  rest  and  peace  ; 
to  raise  them  up  at  the  last  day  ;  and  to  give  them  eternal  life.  God 
is  not  more,  and  cannot  promise  more,  or  do  more  than  Christ  is 
said  to  be,  to  promise,  and  to  do.  He  has,  therefore,  been  the 
Christian's  God  from  the  beginning,  in  all  ages  and  in  all  places. 

Christ  One  Person. 

Thirdly,  He  was,  nevertheless,  although  perfect  man  and  perfect 
God,  but  one  person.  There  is,  in  the  first  place,  the  absence  of 
all  evidence  of  a  twofold  personality  in  Christ.  Tiie  Scriptures 
reveal  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  as  distinct  persons  in  the  God- 
head, because  they  use  the  personal  pronouns  in  reference  to  each 
other.  The  Father  says  Thou  to  the  Son,  and  the  Sou  says  TIiou 
to  the  Father.  The  Father  says  to  the  Son,  "  I  will  give  thee  ;  " 
and  the  Son  says,  "  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will."  Moreover  the  one 
is  objective  to  the  other.  The  Father  loves  and  sends  the  Son  ; 
the  Son  loves  and  obeys  the  Father.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
Spirit.  There  is  nothing  analogous  to  this  in  the  case  of  Christ. 
The  one  nature  is  never  distinguished  from  the  other  as  a  distinct 
person.  The  Son  of  God  never  addresses  the  Son  of  Man  as  a 
different  person    from    Himself.     The    Scriptures  reveal  but  one 


§  2.]  THE   SCRIPTURAL  FACTS.      *  383 

Christ.  In  the  second  place,  besides  this  negative  proof,  the  Bible 
affords  all  the  evidence  of  the  individual  personality  of  our  Lord 
that  the  case  admits  of.  He  always  says  I,  me,  mine.  He  is 
always  addressed  as  Thou,  thee,  thine.  He  is  always  spoken  of  as 
He,  his,  him.  It  was  the  same  person  to  whom  it  was  said, 
*'  Thou  art  not  yet  fifty  years  old ;  "  and  "  Thou,  Lord,  in  the 
beginning  hast  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  the  heavens 
are  the  works  of  thine  hands."  The  individual  personality  of 
Christ  is  set  forth  as  clearly  and  as  variously  as  that  of  any  other 
personage  of  whose  history  the  Scriptures  give  us  the  record.  In 
teaching  that  Christ  had  a  perfect  human  and  a  perfect  divine 
nature,  and  is  one  person,  the  Bible  teaches  the  whole  doctrine  of 
the  incarnation  as  it  has  entered  into  the  faith  of  the  Church  from 
the  beginning. 

Second  Argument^  from  the  Current  Representations  of  Scripture. 

The  current  language  of  Scripture  concerning  Christ  proves 
that  He  was  at  once  divine  and  human.  In  tlie  Old  Testament, 
He  is  set  forth  as  the  seed  of  Abraham,  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  and 
the  family  of  David  ;  as  to  be  born  of  a  virgin  in  the  town  of 
Bethlehem  ;  as  a  man  of  sorrows ;  as  meek  and  lowly  ;  as  bearing 
the  chastisement  of  our  sins,  and  pouring  out  his  soul  unto  death. 
He  is  everywhere  represented  as  a  man.  At  the  same  time  He  is 
everywhere  represented  as  God  ;  He  is  called  the  Son  of  God, 
Immanuel,  the  Mighty  God,  Jehovah  our  righteousness ;  and  He 
is  spoken  of  as  from  everlasting  ;  as  enthroned  in  heaven  and 
receiving  the  adoration  of  angels. 

In  the  New  Testament,  the  same  mode  of  representation  is  con- 
tinued. Our  Lord,  in  speaking  of  Himself,  and  the  Apostles  when 
speaking  of  Him,  uniformly  speak  of  Him  as  a  man.  The  New 
Testament  gives  his  genealogy  to  prove  that  He  was  of  the  house 
and  lineage  of  David.  It  records  his  birth,  life,  and  death.  It 
calls  Him  the  Son  of  Man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus.  Bat  with  like 
uniformity  our  Lord  assumes,  and  the  Apostles  attribute  to  Him  a 
divine  nature.  He  declares  Himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  existing 
from  eternity,  having  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  eartii,  entitled  to 
all  the  reverence,  love,  and  obedience  due  to  God.  The  Apostles 
worship  Him;  they  call  Him  the  great  God  and  Saviour;  they  ac- 
knowledge tlieir  dependence  upon  Him  and  responsibility  to  Him; 
and  they  look  to  Him  for  par(h)n,  sanctification,  and  eternal  life. 
These  conflicting  rejiresentations,  this  constant  setting  forth  the 
same  person  as  man,  and  also  as  God,  admits  of  no  solution  but  in 


384         PART  m.     Ch.   IIL  — the  person   of   CHRIST. 

the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation.  This  is  the  key  to  the  whole  Bible. 
If  this  doctrine  be  denied  all  is  confusion  and  contradiction.  If  it 
be  admitted  all  is  light,  harmony,  and  power.  Christ  is  both  God 
and  man,  in  two  distinct  natures,  and  one  person  forever.  This  is 
the  great  mystery  of  Godliness.  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  is  the 
distinguishing  doctrine  of  the  religion  of  the  Bible,  without  which 
it  is  a  cold  and  lifeless  corpse. 

Third  Argument,  from  Particular  Passages  of  Scripture. 

Although,  as  appears  from  what  has  already  been  said,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  incarnation  does  not  rest  on  isolated  proof-texts,  but 
upon  the  broad  basis  of  the  whole  revelation  of  God  concerning  the 
person  and  work  of  his  Son,  yet  there  are  some  passages  in  which 
this  doctrine  is  so  clearly  stated  in  all  its  elements,  that  they  cannot 
be  properly  overlooked  in  treating  of  this  subject. 

To  this  class  of  passages  belongs,  — 

1.  The  first  chapter  of  John,  verses  1—14.  It  is  here  taught  con- 
cerning the  Logos,  (1.)  That  He  existed  in  eternity.  (2.)  That 
He  was  in  intimate  relation  to  God.  (3.)  That  He  was  God. 
(4.)  That  He  was  the  Creator  of  all  things.  (5.)  In  Him  was 
life.  Having  life  in  himself.  He  is  the  source  of  life  to  all  that  live. 
That  is,  He  is  the  source  of  natural,  of  intellectual,  and  of  spiritual 
life.  (6.)  And,  therefore,  He  is  the  true  light;  that  is,  the  foun- 
tain of  all  knowledge  and  all  holiness.  (7.)  He  came  into  the 
world,  and  the  world  although  made  by  Him,  did  not  recognize 
Him.  (8.)  He  came  to  his  own  people,  and  even  they  did  not 
receive  Him.  (9.)  He  became  flesh,  i.  e.,  He  assumed  our  nature, 
so  that  He  dwelt  among  us  as  a  man.  (10.)  And,  says  the  Apos- 
tle, we  saw  his  glory,  a  glory  which  revealed  Him  to  be  the  only 
begotten  of  the  Father.  It  is  here  taught  that  a  truly  divine  per- 
son, the  eternal  Word,  the  Creator  of  the  world,  became  man, 
dwelt  among  men,  and  revealed  Himself  to  those  who  had  eyes  to 
see,  as  the  eternal  Son  of  God.  Here  is  the  whole  doctrine  of  the 
incarnation,  taught  in  the  most  explicit  terms. 

2.  A  second  passage  to  the  same  effect  is  found  in  1  John  i.  1-3. 
It  is  there  taught  that  what  was  in  the  beginning,  what  was  with 
God,  what  was  eternal,  what  was  essentially  life,  appeared  on 
earth,  so  as  to  be  seen,  heard,  looked  upon,  and  handled.  Here, 
again,  a  divine,  invisible,  eternal  person,  is  said  to  have  assumed 
our  nature,  a  real  body  and  a  rational  soul.  He  could  be  seen  and 
touched  as  well  as  heard.  This  is  the  main  idea  of  this  epistle. 
The  incarnation  is  declared  to  be  the  characteristic  and  essential 


§2.]  SCRIPTURAL  FACTS.  385 

doctrine  of  the  gospel.  "  Every  spirit  that  confesseth  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  of  God  :  and  every  spirit  that  con- 
fesseth not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  not  of  God : 
and  this  is  that  spirit  of  antichrist,  whereof  ye  have  heard  that  it 
should  come  ;  and  even  now  already  is  it  in  the  world." 

3.  In  Romans  i.  2-5,  the  Apostle  says  that  the  gospel  concerns 
the  Son  of  God,  who  is  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who,  as  to  his  human 
nature,  kuto.  o-dpKa,  is  the  Son  of  David,  but  as  to  his  divine  nature, 
Kara  Tricu/i-a,  is  the  Son  of  God.  Here  also  the  two  natures  and  one 
person  of  the  Redeemer  are  clearly  asserted.  The  parallel  pas- 
sage to  this  is  Romans  ix.  5,  where  Christ  is  said  Kara  a-dpKa  to  be 
descended  from  the  fathers,  but  at  the  same  time  to  be  God  over 
all  and  blessed  forever.  The  same  person  is  declared  to  be  the 
supreme  God  and  a  child  of  Abraham,  a  member  of  the  Hebrew 
nation  by  natural  descent. 

4.  In  1  Timothy  iii.  16,  we  are  taught  that  God  was  "  manifest  in 
the  flesh,  justified  in  the  Spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached  among  the 
Gentiles,  believed  on  in  the  world,  received  up  into  glory."  In  this 
passage  the  reading  is  indeed  doubtful.  The  common  text  which 
has  0£os  has  the  support  of  almost  all  the  cursive,  and  of  some  of 
the  uncial  manuscripts,  of  several  of  the  versions,  and  of  many  of 
the  Greek  fathers.  But  whether  we  read  0eos  or  6s,  the  meaning 
is  substantially  the  same.  Two  things  are  plain  :  first,  that  all  the 
predicates  in  this  verse  belong  to  one  subject:  and  secondly,  that 
that  subject  is  Christ.  He,  his  person,  is  the  great  mystery  of 
Godliness.  He  was  manifested  in  the  flesh  (z.  e.,  in  our  nature)  ; 
He,  as  thus  manifested,  the  Theanthropos,  was  justified,  i.  e.,  proved 
to  be  just,  i.  e.,  to  be  what  He  claimed  to  be  (namely,  the  Son  of 
God),  by  the  Spirit,  either  by  the  divine  nature  or  majesty  dwell- 
ing In  Him,  or  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  whose  office  it  is  to  take  the 
things  of  Christ  and  reveal  them  unto  us.  He,  this  incarnate  God, 
was  seen,  i.  e.,  recognized  and  served  by  angels  ;  preached  among 
the  Gentiles  as  the  Son  of  God  and  Saviour  of  men ;  believed  upon 
as  such  ;  and  finally  received  up  into  glory.  All  that  the  Church 
teaches  concerning  the  person  of  Christ,  is  here  taught  by  the 
Apostle. 

5.  No  passage,  however,  is  more  full  and  explicit  on  this  subject 
than  Philippians  ii.  6-11.  Of  one  and  the  same  subject  or  person, 
it  is  here  taught,  (1.)  That  He  was  God,  or  existed  in  the  form  of 
God.  The  form  of  a  thing  is  the  mode  in  which  it  reveals  itself; 
and  that  is  determined  by  its  nature.  It  is  not  necessary  to  assume 
that  fjf-opcfii]  has  here,  as  it  appears  to  have  in  some  other  cases,  the 

VOL.  II.  25 


386         PART  III.     Ch.   m.  — the   person   of   CHRIST. 

sense  of  ^vVis;  the  latter  is  implied  in  the  former.  No  one  can 
appear,  or  exist  in  view  of  otliers  in  the  form  of  God,  i.  g.,  mani- 
festing all  divine  perfections,  who  is  not  God.  (2.)  Hence  it  is 
asserted  that  the  person  spoken  of  was  equal  to  God.  (3.)  He 
became  a  man  like  other  men,  and  assumed  the  form  of  a  servant, 
i.  e.,  appeared  among  men  as  a  servant.  (4.)  He  submitted  to 
die  upon  the  cross.  (5.)  He  has  been  exalted  above  all  created 
beings,  and  invested  with  universal  and  absolute  authority.  Christ, 
therefore,  of  whom  this  passage  treats,  has  a  divine  nature,  and  a 
human  nature,  and  is  one  person. 

6.  In  Hebrews  ii.  14,  the  same  doctrine  concerning  the  person  of 
Christ  is  clearly  taught.  In  the  first  chapter  of  that  Epistle  the 
Son  is  declared  to  be  the  brightness  of  the  Father's  glory  and  the 
express  image  of  his  substance  (^.  g.,  of  what  the  Father  is).  By 
Him  the  worlds  were  made.  He  upholds  all  things  by  the  word 
of  his  power.  He  is  higher  than  the  angels,  i.  e.,  than  all  intelli- 
gent creatures.  They  are  bound  to  worship  Him.  They  are 
addressed  as  mere  instruments  ;  but  the  Son  as  God.  He  made 
the  heavens  and  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth.  He  is  eternal 
and  immutable.  He  is  associated  with  God  in  glory  and  dominion. 
He,  the  person  of  whom  all  this  is  said  in  the  first  chapter,  in  the 
second  chapter  is  declared  to  be  a  man.  In  Him  was  fulfilled  all 
the  sacred  writer  in  the  eighth  Psalm  had  taught  concerninfr  the 
universal  dominion  assigned  to  man.  Men  are  declared  to  be  his 
brethren,  because  He  and  they  are  of  one  nature.  As  they  are 
partakers  of  flesh  and  blood.  He  also  took  part  in  the  same,  in 
order  that  He  might  die,  and  by  death  redeem  his  people  from  all 
the  evils  of  sin. 

Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  the  Scriptures  do  teach  that 
Christ  is  truly  God,  that  He  is  truly  man,  and  that  He  is  one  per- 
son. They  assert  of  Him  wdiatever  ma}'  be  said  of  God,  and  every- 
thing that  can  be  said  of  a  sinless  man.  They  enter  into  no  ex- 
planations. They  assume  it  as  a  certain  fact  that  Christ  is  God  and 
man  in  one  person,  just  as  they  assume  that  a  man  is  a  soul  and 
body  in  one  person. 

Here  the  subject  might  be  left.  All  the  ends  of  the  spiritual 
life  of  the  believer,  are  answered  by  this  simple  statement  of  the 
doctrine  concerning  Christ's  person  as  it  is  presented  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. False  explanations,  however,  create  the  necessity  for  a  cor- 
rect one.  Errorists  in  all  ages  have  so  explained  the  facts  recorded 
concerning  Christ,  as  either  to  deny  the  truth  concerning  his  divine 
nature,  or  the  integrity  of  his  human  nature,  or  the  unity  of  his 


§3.]  THE   HYPOSTATICAL   UNION.  387 

person.  Hence  the  Church  has  been  constrained  to  teach  what  the 
Bible  doctrine  involves :  first,  as  to  the  nature  of  the  union  of  the 
two  natures  in  Christ ;  and  secondly,  as  to  the  consequences  of 
that  union. 

§  3.    The  Hypostatieal  Union. 

Two  Natures  in  Christ. 

There  is  a  union.  The  elements  united  are  the  divine  and  hu- 
man nature.  By  nature^  in  this  connection  is  meant  substance. 
In  Greek  the  corresponding  words  are  <^uo-is  and  ova-ta  ;  in  Latin, 
natura  and  substantia.  The  idea  of  substance  is  a  necessary  one. 
We  are  constrained  to  believe  that  where  we  see  tlie  manifestation 
of  force,  there  is  something,  an  objective  entity  which  acts,  and  of 
which  such  force  is  the  manifestation.  It  is  self-evident  tliat  a 
non-ens  cannot  act.  It  may  be  well  here  to  call  to  mind  a  few  ad- 
mitted principles  which  have  already  been  repeatedly  adverted  to. 
(1.)  It  is  intuitively  certain  that  attributes,  properties,  and  power 
or  force,  necessarily  imply  a  substance  of  which  they  are  manifesta- 
tions. Of  nothing,  nothing  can  be  predicated.  That  of  which  we 
can  predicate  the  attributes  either  of  matter  or  mind,  must  of  ne- 
cessity be  a  reality.  (2.)  It  is  no  less  certain  that  where  the  attri- 
butes are  incompatible,  the  substances  must  be  different  and  distinct. 
That  which  is  extended  cannot  be  unextended.  That  which  is 
divisible  cannot  be  indivisible.  That  which  is  incapable  of  thought 
cannot  think.  That  which  is  finite  cannot  be  infinite.  (3.)  Equally 
certain  is  it  that  attributes  cannot  exist  distinct  and  separate  from 
substance.  There  cannot  be  accidentia  sine  suhjecto ;  otherwise 
there  mieht  be  extension  without  anvthing;  extended,  and  thouo-ht 
without  anything  that  thinks.  (4.)  Again,  it  is  intuitively  certain 
that  the  attributes  of  one  substance  cannot  be  transferred  to  an- 
other. Matter  cannot  be  endowed  with  the  attributes  of  mind  ; 
for  then  it  would  cease  to  be  matter.  Mind  cannot  be  invested 
with  the  properties  of  matter,  for  then  it  would  cease  to  be  mind  ; 
neither  can  humanity.be  possessed  of  the  attributes  of  divinity,  for 
then  it  would  cease  to  be  humanity.  This  is  only  saying  that  the 
finite  cannot  be  infinite.  Speaking  in  general  terms,  in  the  whole 
history  of  human  thought,  these  principles  have  been  recognized 
as  axiomatic ;  and  their  denial  puts  an  end  to  discussion. 

If  the  above  mentioned  principles  be  admitted,  then  it  follows 
that  in  setting  forth  his  Son  as  clothed  in  all  the  attributes  of  hu- 
manity, with  a  body  that  was  born  of  a  woman,  which  increased 
in  stature,  which  was  seen,  felt,  and  handled ;  and  with  a  soul  that 


388         PART  ni.     Ch.   m.— the   person   of   CHRIST. 

was  troubled,  joyful,  and  sorrowful,  that  increased  in  wisdom  and 
was  ignorant  of  certain  things,  God  intends  and  requires  that  we 
should  believe  that  He  was  a  true  man,  —  not  a  phantom,  not  an 
abstraction,  —  not  the  complex  of  properties  without  the  substance 
of  humanity,  but  a  true  or  real  man,  like  other  men,  yet  without 
sin.  In  like  manner  when  He  is  declared  to  be  God  over  all,  to 
be  omniscient,  almighty,  and  eternal,  it  is  no  less  evident  that  He 
has  a  truly  divine  nature  ;  that  the  substance  of  God  in  Him  is  the 
subject  in  which  these  divine  attributes  inhere.  This  being  so,  we 
are  taught  that  the  elements  combined  in  the  constitution  of  his 
person,  namely,  humanity  and  divinity,  are  two  distinct  natures, 
or  substances.  Such  has  been  the  faith  of  the  Church  universal. 
In  those  ancient  creeds  which  are  adopted  by  the  Greek,  Latin, 
and  Protestant  Churches,  it  is  declared  that  Christ  as  to  his  hu- 
manity is  consubstantial  with  us,  and  as  to  his  divinity,  consubstan- 
tial  witli  the  Father.     In  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  the  Church 

declared  our  Lord  to  be,^  Q)f.ov  aX-qOw^  nal  avOpwirov  aXrjOwi  tov  avTOV 
«  ij/v)(rjs  XoytKTJ'i  Koi  o-w/i,aTos,  6/xooiIo-iov  tw  Trarpt  Kara  t^v  OeorrjTa  Kat  ofxoov- 
(TLov  TOV  avTOV  Tjijuv  KttTa  Tr]v  avOpiDTTorrp-a. 

Tliomas  Aquinas  says,^  "  Humana  natura  in  Christo  quamvis  sit 
substantia  particularis:  qui  tamen  venit  in  unionem  cujusdam  com- 
pleti,  scilicet  totius  Christi,  prout  est  Deus  et  homo,  non  potest  dici 
hypostasis  vel  suppositum :  Sed  ilium  completum  ad  quod  concurrit, 
dicitur  esse  hypostasis  vel  suppositum."  In  all  the  creeds  of  the 
Reformation  the  same  doctrine  is  presented.  In  the  "  Augsburg 
Confession"^  it  is  said,  "  Filius  Dei  assumpsit  humanam  naturam 
in  utero  beatae  Marias  virginis,  ut  sint  duse  naturae,  divina  et  hu- 
mana,  in  unitate  personae  inseparabiliter  conjunctae,  unus  Christus, 
vere  Deus  et  vere  homo."  "  Natura  (^vVts,  ouo-m)  in  Christo  est 
substantia  vel  divinitatis  vel  humanitatis.  Persona  (vTrdorao-is, 
Trpoo-wTTov)  Christi  est  individuum  ex  utraque  natura  et  divina  et 
humana,  conjuncta,  non  mixta,  concretum."*  In  the  "Second 
Helvetic  Confession  "^  it  is  said,  "Agnoscimus  in  uno  atque  eodem 
Domino  nostro  Jesu  Christo,  duas  naturas  (for  natura,  substantia 

is  used  in  other  parts  of  the  chapter),  divinam  et  humanam 

In  una  persona  unitae  vel  conjunctae  [sunt]  :  ita  ut  unum  Christum 
Dominum,  non  duos  veneremur  :  unum  inquam  verum  Deum,  et 
hominem,  juxta  divinam  naturam  Patri,  juxta  humanam  vero  nobis 

1  Actio  Quinta,  Binius,  Concilia  Generalia,  vol.  ii.  part  1,  p.  253,  e. 

2  Summn,  in.  quaest.  ii.  art.  3,  edit.  Cologne,  1640,  p.  5  of  fourth  set. 
8  III. ;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolici,  p.  10. 

*  Hase's  HuUtrus  Redivivus,  sixth  edition,  p.  224. 
5  Cap.  XI.;  Niemeyer,  Collectio  Confessionum,  p.  484. 


§3.]  THE   HYPOSTATICAL   UNION.  389 

hominibus  consubstantialem,  et  per  omnia  similem,  peccato  ex- 
cepto.'*  Therefore  the  tlieologians  teach/  "  Natura  divina  est  es- 
sentia divina,  qua  Christus  Patri  et  Spiritui  Sancto  coessentialis  est. 
Natura  humatia  est  essentia  seu  substantia  humana,  qua  Christus 
nobis  hominibus  coessentialis  est."  Or  as  stated  in  the  ancient 
creeds,  Christ  is  not  aXXos  koL  aAXos  (one  person  and  another 
person),  but  aAAo  koI  aXXo  (one  substance  and  another  substanct,*). 

The  Two  Natures  are  united  hut  not  mingled  or  confounded. 

We  have  seen  that  the  first  important  point  concerning  the  per- 
bon  of  Christ  is,  that  the  elements  united  or  combined  in  his  person 
are  two  distinct  substances,  hnmanity  and  divinity ;  that  He  has 
in  his  constitution  the  same  essence  or  substance  which  constitutes 
us  men,  and  the  same  substance  which  makes  God  infinite,  eternal, 
and  immutable  in  all  his  perfections.  The  second  point  is,  that 
this  union  is  not  by  mixture  so  that  a  new,  third  substance  is  pro- 
duced, which  is  neither  humanity  nor  divinity  but  possessing  the 
properties  of  both.  Tiiis  is  an  impossibility,  because  the  properties 
in  question  are  incompatible.  We  cannot  mingle  mind  and  mat- 
ter so  as  to  make  a  substance  which  is  neither  mind  nor  matter, 
but  spiritual  matter,  for  that  would  be  a  contradiction.  It  would 
amount  to  unextended  extension,  tangible  intangibility,  or  visible 
invisibility.  Neither  is  it  possible  that  the  divine  and  human 
natures  should  be  so  mingled  as  to  result  in  a  third,  which  is  neither 
purely  human  nor  purely  divine,  but  theanthropic.  Christ's  per- 
son is  theanthropic,  but  not  his  nature;  for  that  would  make  the 
finite  infinite,  and  the  infinite  finite.  Christ  would  be  neither  God 
nor  man  ;  but  the  Scriptures  constantly  declare  Him  to  be  both 
God  and  man.  In  all  Christian  creeds  therefore,  it  is  declared  that 
the  two  natures  in  Christ  retain  each  its  own  properties  and  attrib- 
utes. They  all  teach  that  the  natures  are  not  confounded,  "  Sed 
salvis  potius  et  permanentibus  naturarum  proprietatibus  in  una 
persona  unitae  vel  conjunctae." 

As  therefore  the  human  body  retains  all  its  properties  as  matter, 
and  the  soul  all  its  attributes  as  spirit  in  their  union  in  our  persons; 
so  humanity  and  divinity  retain  each  its  peculiar  properties  in  their 
union  in  the  person  of  Christ.  And  as  intelligence,  sensibility,  and 
will  are  the  properties  of  the  human  soul,  without  which  it  ceases 
to  be  a  soul,  it  follows  that  tiie  human  soul  of  Christ  retained  its 
intelligence,  sensibility,  and  will.  But  intelligence  and  will  are  no 
less  the  essential  properties  of  the  divine  nature,  and  therefore  were 

1  Pclanus,  i>ijnla<jiii(i  'J'l,tol<'i,ue,  vi.  I'J,  Haiiuviae,  1025,  p.  362,  a,  b. 


390         PART  III.     Ch.  III.  — the   person   OF   CHRIST. 

retained  after  its  union  with  the  human  nature  in  Christ.  In  teach- 
ing, therefore,  that  Christ  was  truly  man  and  truly  God,  the 
Scri])tures  teach  that  He  had  a  finite  intelligence  and  will,  and  also 
an  infinite  intelligence.  In  Him,  therefore,  as  the  Church  has  ever 
maintained,  there  were  and  are  two  wills,  two  eVepyeiai  or  opera- 
tions. His  human  intellect  increased,  his  divine  intelligence  was, 
and  is  infinite.  His  human  will  had  only  human  power,  his  divine 
will  was,  and  is  almighty.  Mysterious  and  inscrutable  as  all  this  is, 
it  is  not  more  so  than  the  union  of  the  discordant  elements  of  mind 
and  matter  in  our  own  constitution. 

There  is  no  Transfer  of  the  Attributes  of  one  Nature  to  the  Other. 

The  third  j)oint  in  relation  to  the  person  of  Christ,  is  that  no 
attribute  of  the  one  nature  is  transferred  to  the  other.  This  is 
virtually  included  in  what  has  already  been  said.  There  are  those, 
however,  who  admit  that  the  two  natures  in  Christ  are  not  mixed 
or  confounded,  who  yet  maintain  that  the  attributes  of  the  one  are 
transferred  to  the  other.  But  the  pro])erties  or  attributes  of  a 
substance  constitute  its  essence,  so  that  if  they  be  removed  or  if 
others  of  a  different  nature  be  added  to  them,  the  substance  itself 
is  changed.  If  you  take  rationality  from  mind  it  ceases  to  be 
mind.  If  you  add  I'ationality  to  matter  it  ceases  to  be  matter.  If 
you  make  that  extended  which  in  itself  is  incapable  of  extension, 
the  identity  of  the  thing  is  lost.  If  therefore  infinity  be  conferred 
on  the  finite,  it  ceases  to  be  finite.  If  divine  attributes  be  con- 
ferred on  man,  he  ceases  to  be  man  ;  and  if  human  attributes  be 
transferred  to  God,  he  ceases  to  be  God.  The  Scriptures  teach 
that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  remained  in  its  integrity  after  the 
incarnation  ;  and  that  the  divine  nature  remained  divine.  The 
Bible  never  requires  us  to  receive  as  true  anything  which  the  con- 
stitution of  our  nature  given  to  us  by  God  himself,  forces  us  to 
believe  to  be  false  or  impossible. 

The  Union  is  a  Personal  Union. 

The  union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  is  a  personal  or  hypo- 
static union.  By  this  is  meant,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  is  not  a 
mere  indwelling  of  the  divine  nature  analogous  to  the  indwelling 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  his  people.  Much  less  is  it  a  mere  moral 
or  sympathetic  union  ;  or  a  temporary  and  mutable  relation  between 
the  two.  In  the  second  place,  it  is  intended  to  affirm  that  the 
union  is  such  that  Christ  is  but  one  person.  As  the  union  of  the 
soul  and  body  constitutes  a  man  one  person,  so  the  union  of  the 


§3.J  THE   HYPOSTATICAL  UNION.  391 

Son  of  God  with  our  nature  constitutes  Him  one  person.  And  as 
in  man  the  personaUty  is  in  the  soul  and  not  in  the  body,  so  the 
personality  of  Christ  is  in  the  divine  nature.  Both  of  these  points 
are  abundantly  evident  from  Scripture.  The  former,  or  the  unity 
of  Christ's  person,  has  already  been  proved ;  and  the  latter  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that  the  Logos,  or  Son,  was  from  all  eternity  a 
distinct  person  in  the  Godhead.  It  was  a  divine  person,  not  merely 
a  divine  nature,  that  assumed  humanity,  or  became  incarnate. 
Hence  it  follows  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  separately  con- 
sidered, is  impersonal.  To  this,  indeed,  it  is  objected  that  intelli- 
gence and  will  constitute  personality,  and  as  these  belong  to 
Christ's  human  nature  personality  cannot  be  denied  to  it.  A  per- 
son, however,  is  a  suppositum  iritelUgens,  but  the  human  nature 
of  Christ  is  not  a  suppositum  or  subsistence.  To  personality  both 
rational  substance  and  distinct  subsistence  are  essential.  The  latter 
the  human  nature  of  Christ  never  possessed.  The  Son  of  God  did 
not  unite  Himself  with  a  human  person,  but  with  a  human  nature. 
The  proof  of  this  is  that  Christ  is  but  one  person.  The  possibility 
of  such  a  union  cannot  rationally  be  denied.  Realists  believe  that 
generic  humanity,  although  intelligent  and  voluntary,  is  impersonal, 
existing  personally  only  in  individual  men.  Although  realism  may 
not  be  a  correct  philosophy,  the  fact  of  its  wide  and  long  continued 
prevalence  may  be  taken  as  a  proof  that  it  does  not  involve  any 
palpable  contradiction.  Human  nature,  therefore,  although  endowed 
with  intelligence  and  will,  may  be,  and  in  fact  is,  in  the  person  of 
Christ  impersonal.  That  it  is  so  is  the  plain  doctrine  of  Scripture, 
for  the  Son  of  God,  a  divine  person,  assumed  a  perfect  human 
nature,  and,  nevertheless,  remains  one  person. 

The  facts,  therefore,  revealed  in  Scripture  concerning  Christ 
constrain  us  to  believe,  (1.)  That  in  his  person  two  natures,  the 
divine  and  the  human,  are  inseparably  united ;  and  the  word 
nature  in  this  connection  means  substance.  (2.)  That  these  two 
natures  or  substances  are  not  mixed  or  confounded  so  as  to  form  a 
third,  which  is  neither  the  one  nor  the  other.  Each  nature  retains 
all  its  own  properties  unchanged  ;  so  that  in  Christ  there  is  a  finite 
intelligence  and  infinite  intelligence,  a  finite  will  or  energy,  and  an 
infinite  will.  (3.)  That  no  property  of  the  divine  nature  is  trans- 
ferred to  the  human,  and  much  less  is  any  property  of  the  human 
transferred  to  the  divine.  Humanity  in  Christ  is  not  deified,  nor 
is  the  divinity  reduced  to  the  limitations  of  humanity.  (4.)  The 
union  of  the  natures  is  not  mere  contact  or  occupancy  of  the  same 
portion  of  space.     It  is  not  an  indwelling,  or  a  simple  control  of 


392         PART  III.     Ch.  in.  — the  person   of   CHRIST. 

the  divine  nature  over  the  operations  of  the  human,  but  a  personal 
union ;  such  a  union  that  its  result  is  that  Christ  is  one  person  with 
two  distinct  natures  forever  ;  at  once  God  and  man. 

§  4.   Consequences  of  the  Hypostatical  Union. 

Communion  of  Attributes. 

The  first  and  most  obvious  of  these  consequences  is,  the  Kon/wvt'a 
iStto/Aarwi/,  or  communion  of  attributes.  By  this  is  not  meant  that 
the  one  nature  participates  in  the  attributes  of  the  other,  but  simply 
that  the  person  is  the  Kotvwvos,  or  partaker  of  the  attributes  of  both 
natures ;  so  that  whatever  may  be  affirmed  of  either  nature  may 
be  affirmed  of  the  person.  As  of  a  man  can  be  affirmed  whatever 
is  true  of  his  body  and  whatever  is  true  of  his  soul,  so  of  Christ 
may  be  affirmed  whatever  is  true  of  his  human  nature  and  whatever 
is  true  of  his  divinity  ;  as  we  can  say  of  a  man  that  he  is  mortal 
and  immortal ;  that  he  is  a  creature  of  the  dust  and  the  child  of 
God  :  so  we  may  say  of  Christ  that  He  is  finite  and  infinite  ;  that 
He  is  ignorant  and  omniscient ;  that  He  is  less  tlian  God  and  equal 
with  God  ;  that  He  existed  from  eternity  and  that  He  was  born  in 
time ;  that  He  created  all  things  and  that  He  was  a  man  of  sorrows. 
It  is  on  this  principle,  that  what  is  true  of  either  nature  is  true  of 
the  person,  tliat  a  multitude  of  passages  of  Scripture  are  to  be 
explained.     These  passages  are  of  diffi^rent  kinds. 

1.  Those  in  which  the  predicate  belongs  to  the  whole  person. 
This  is  the  most  numerous  class.  Thus  when  Chi'ist  is  called  our 
Redeemer,  our  Lord,  our  King,  Prophet,  or  Priest,  our  Shepherd, 
etc.,  all  these  things  are  true  of  Him  not  as  the  Logos,  or  Son,  nor 
as  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  but  as  the  ©eai/^pwTros,  the  God-man.  And 
in  like  manner,  when  He  is  said  to  have  been  humbled,  to  have 
given  Himself  for  us,  to  be  the  head  of  the  Church,  to  be  our  life, 
and  to  be  our  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification,  and  redemp- 
tion, this  is  true  of  Christ  as  a  person.  The  same  may  be  said  with 
regard  to  those  passages  in  which  He  is  said  to  be  exalted  above 
all  principalities  and  powers  ;  to  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  God ;  and 
to  come  to  judge  the  world. 

2.  There  are  many  passages  in  which  the  person  is  the  subject, 
but  the  predicate  is  true  only  of  the  divine  nature,  or  of  the  Logos. 
As  when  our  Lord  said,  "  Before  Abraham  was  I  am ;  "  "  The 
glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  ;  " 
or  when  it  is  said,  "  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  and  the  heavens  are  the  work  of  thine 
hands." 


§4.]      CONSEQUENCES   OF  THE   HYPOSTATICAL  UNION.      393 

3.  Passages  in  which  the  person  is  the  subject,  but  the  predicate 
is  true  only  of  the  human  nature.  As  when  Christ  said,  "  I  thirst ; " 
"My  soul  is  sorrowful  even  unto  death."  And  when  we  read  that 
"  Jesus  wept.''  So  all  those  passages  which  speak  of  our  Lord  as 
walking,  eating,  and  sleeping  ;  and  as  being  seen,  touched,  and 
handled.  Tiiere  are  two  classes  of  passages  under  this  general 
head  which  are  of  special  interest.  First,  those  in  which  the  person 
is  designated  from  the  divine  nature  when  the  predicate  is  true  only 
of  the  human  nature.  "  The  Church  of  God  which  He  purchased 
with  his  blood."  "  The  Lord  of  glor^'was  crucified."  "The  Son 
knows  not  the  time  when  the  final  judgment  is  to  come."  (Mai'k 
xiii.  32.)  The  forms  of  expression,  therefore,  long  prevalent  in  the 
Church,  "the  blood  of  God,"  "God  the  mighty  maker  died,"  etc., 
are  in  accordance  with  Scriptural  usage.  And  if  it  be  right  to 
say  "  God  died,"  it  is  right  to  say  "  He  was  born."  The  person 
born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  was  a  divine  person.  He  was  the  Son  of 
God.  It  is,  therefore,  correct  to  say  that  Mary  was  the  mother  of 
God.  For,  as  we  have  seen,  the  person  of  Christ  is  in  Scripture 
often  designated  from  the  divine  nature,  wlien  the  predicate  is 
true  only  of  the  human  nature.  On  this  particular  form  of  expres- 
sion, which,  from  its  abuse,  is  generally  offensive  to  Protestant  ears, 
Turrettin  remarks:  "Maria  potest  dici  vere  ^eoroKo?  seu  Mater  Dei ^ 
Deipara,  si  vox  Dei  sumatur  concrete  pro  toto  personali  Christi, 
quod  constat  ex  persona  Aoyou  et  natura  humana,  quo  sensu  vocatur 
Mater  Domini  Luc.  i.  43,  sed  non  precise  et  abstracte  ratione 
Deitatis."  ^  The  second  class  of  passages  under  this  head  are  of 
the  opposite  kind,  namely,  those  in  w-hich  the  person  is  denominated 
from  the  human  nature  when  the  predicate  is  true  only  of  the  divine 
nature.  Thus  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  man  who  is  in  heaven. 
Here  the  denomination  "  Son  of  man  "  is  from  the  human,  while 
the  predicate  (ubiquity)  is  true  oidy  of  the  divine  nature.  So  our 
Lord  says,  "  What  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  ascend  up 
where  He  was  before  ?"  (John  vi.  62.)  In  Romans  ix.  5,  He 
who  was  of  the  fathers  (the  seed  of  Abraham  and  son  of  David) 
is  declared  to  be  God  over  all  and  blessed  forever. 

4.  There  is  a  fourth  class  of  passages  which  come  under  the  first 
general  head  mentioned  above,  but  have  the  peculiarity  that  the 
denomination  is  derived  from  the  divine  nature,  when  the  predicate 
is  not  true  of  the  divine  nature  itself,  but  only  of  the  ©eai'^pwTros. 
Thus  it  is  said,  "  The  Son  also  himself  shall  be  subject  to  him  who 
put  all  things  under  him."     Here  the  designation  Son  is  from  the 

1  Locus  XVIII.  quaest.  v.  18,  edit.  Edinburgh,  1847,  vol.  ii.  pp.  273,  274. 


39^    PART  III.  Ch.  III.  — the  person  OF  CHRIST. 

divine  nature,  but  tlie  subjection  predicated  is  not  of  tbe  Son  as 
such,  or  of  the  Logos,  nor  is  it  simply  of  the  human  nature,  but  offi- 
cially of  the  God-man.  So  our  Lord  says,  "  The  Father  is  greater 
than  L"  The  Father  is  not  greater  than  the  Son,  for  they  are  the 
same  in  substance  and  equal  in  power  and  glory.  It  is  as  God-man 
that  He  is  economically  subject  to  the  Father.  Perhaps  tlie  pas- 
sage in  John  v.  26  may  belong  to  this  class.  "  As  the  Father  hath 
life  in  himself;  so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself" 
This  may  be  understood  of  the  eternal  communication  of  life  from 
the  first  to  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity  (i.  e.,  of  eternal  gen- 
eration) ;  or  it  may  refer  to  the  constitution  of  Christ's  person. 
And  then  the  term  Son  would  designate,  not  the  Logos,  but  the 
Tlieanthropos,  and  the  communication  of  life  w^ould  not  be  from  the 
Father  to  the  Son,  but  from  God  to  the  Theanthropos.  It  pleased 
the  Father  that  Christ  should  have  a  divine  nature  possessed  of 
inherent  life  in  order  that  He  might  be  the  source  of  life  to  his 
people. 

It  is  instructive  to  notice  here  how  easily  and  naturally  the 
sacred  writers  predicate  of  our  Lord  the  attributes  of  humanity  and 
those  of  divinity,  however  his  person  may  be  denominated.  They 
call  Him  Lord,  or  Son,  and  attribute  to  Him,  often  in  the  same 
sentence,  what  is  true  of  Him  only  as  God,  what  is  true  only  of  his 
humanity,  and  what  is  true  of  Him  only  as  the  God-man.  Thus 
in  the  beginning  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  it  is  said,  God  hath 
spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son.  Here  Son  means  the  incarnate  Logos. 
In  the  next  clause,  "  By  whom  he  made  the  world,"  what  is  said 
is  true  only  of  the  eternal  Son.  So  also  what  immediately  follows, 
Who  is  "  the  brightness  of  his  glory  and  the  express  image  of  his 
person,  and  upholding  all  things  (the  universe)  by  the  word  of  his 
power."  But  in  the  next  clause,  "  When  he  had  by  himself 
(i.  e.,  by  his  sacrificial  death)  purged  away  our  sins,"  the  reference 
is  to  his  human  nature,  as  the  body  only  died.  And  then  it  is 
added,  He  "  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high," 
which  is  true  of  the  God-man. 

The  Acts  of  Christ. 

The  second  consequence  of  the  hypostatical  union  relates  to  the 
acts  of  Christ.  As  a  man  is  one  person,  and  because  he  is  one 
person  all  his  acts  are  the  acts  of  that  person,  so  all  the  acts  of 
Cin-ist  are  the  acts  of  his  whole  person.  But,  as  was  before 
remarked,  the  acts  of  a  man  are  of  three  classes :  such  as  are  purely 
mental,  as  thought ;  such  as  belong  exclusively  to  the  body,  as 


§4]      CONSEQUENCES   OF   THE   HYPOSTATICAL   UNION,      395 

digestion  and  assimilation;  and  sucli  as  are  mixed,  i.  e.,botli  mental 
and  corporeal,  as  all  voluntary  acts,  as  speaking,  writing,  etc. 
Yet  all  are  equally  the  acts  of  the  man.  It  is  the  man  who  thinks, 
wlio  digests  his  food,  and  who  speaks.  So  of  the  acts  of  Ciirist. 
Some  are  purely  divine,  as  creation  and  preservation  ;  some  are 
purely  human,  as  eating,  drinking,  and  sleeping;  some  are  thean- 
tliropic,  i.  e.,  those  in  which  both  natures  concur,  as  in  the  work  of 
redemption.  Yet  all  these  acts  are  the  acts  of  Christ,  of  one  and 
the  same  person.  It  was  Christ  who  created  the  world.  It  was 
Christ  who  ate  and  drank.  And  It  is  Christ  who  redeems  us  from 
the  power  of  darkness. 

Here  also,  as  in  the  case  of  the  attributes  of  Christ,  his  person 
may  be  denominated  from  one  nature  when  the  act  ascribed  to  Him 
belongs  to  the  other  nature.  He  is  called  God,  the  Son  of  God, 
the  Lord  of  glory,  when  his  delivering  Himself  unto  death  is 
spoken  of.  And  He  is  called  man,  or  the  Son  of  man,  when  the 
acts  ascribed  to  Him  involve  the  exercise  of  divine  power  or  author- 
ity. It  is  the  Son  of  man  who  forgives  sins  ;  who  is  Lord  of  the 
Sabbatli  ;  who  raises  the  dead  ;  and  who  is  to  send  forth  his  angels 
to  gather  his  elect. 

Such  being  the  Scriptural  doctrine  concerning  the  person  of 
Christ,  it  follows  that  although  the  divine  nature  is  immutable  and 
impassible,  and  therefore  neither  the  obedience  nor  the  suffering 
of  Christ  was  the  obedience  or  suffering  of  the  divine  nature,  yet 
they  were  none  the  less  the  obedience  and  suffering  of  a  divine 
person.  The  soul  of  man  cannot  be  wounded  or  burnt,  but  when 
the  body  is  injured  it  is  the  man  who  suffers.  In  like  manner  the 
obedience  of  Christ  was  the  righteousness  of  God,  and  the  blood  of 
Christ  was  the  blood  of  God.  It  is  to  this  fact  that  the  infinite 
merit  and  efficiency  of  his  work  are  due.  This  is  distinctly  asserted 
in  the  Scriptures.  It  is  impossible,  says  the  Apostle,  that  the  blood 
of  bulls  and  of  goats  could  take  away  sin.  It  was  because  Christ 
was  possessed  of  an  eternal  Spirit  that  He  by  the  one  offering  of 
Himself  hath  perfected  forever  them  who  are  sanctified.  This  is 
the  main  idea  insisted  upon  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  This 
is  the  reason  given  why  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  need  never  be 
repeated,  and  why  it  is  infinitely  more  efficacious  than  those  of  the 
old  dispensation.  This  truth  has  been  graven  on  the  hearts  of 
believers  in  all  ages.  Every  such  believer  says  from  his  heart, 
"  Jesus,  my  God,  thy  blood  alone  has  power  sufficient  to  atone." 


396         PART  m.     Ch.  m.  — the   person   of   CHRIST. 

The  Man  Christ  Jesus  the  object  of  Worship. 

Another  obvious  inference  from  this  doctrine  is  that  the  man 
Christ  Jesus  is  the  object  of  religious  worship.  To  worship,  in  the 
religious  sense  of  the  word,  is  to  ascribe  divine  perfections  to  its 
object.  The  possession  of  those  perfections,  is,  therefore,  the  only- 
proper  ground  for  such  worship.  The  humanity  of  Christ,  conse- 
quently, is  not  the  ground  of  worship,  but  it  enters  into  the  consti- 
tution of  that  person  who,  being  God  over  all  and  blessed  forever, 
is  the  object  of  adoration  to  saints  and  angels.  We  accordingly 
find  that  it  was  He  whom  they  saw,  felt,  and  handled,  that  the 
Apostles  worshipped  as  their  Lord  and  God  ;  whom  they  loved 
supremely,  and  to  whom  they  consecrated  themselves  as  a  living 
sacrifice. 

Christ  can  sympathize  with  his  People. 

A  third  inference  which  the  Apostles  drew  from  this  doctrine  is, 
that  Christ  is  a  merciful  and  faithful  high-priest.  He  is  just  the 
Saviour  we  need.  God  as  God,  the  eternal  Logos,  could  neither 
be  nor  do  what  our  necessities  demand.  Much  less  could  any  mere 
man,  however  wise,  holy,  or  benevolent,  meet  the  wants  of  our 
souls.  It  is  only  a  Saviour  who  is  both  God  and  man  in  two  dis- 
tinct natures  and  one  person  forever,  who  is  all  we  need  and  all  we 
can  desire.  As  God  He  is  ever  present,  almighty  and  infinite  in  all 
his  resources  to  save  and  bless  ;  and  as  man,  or  being  also  a  man, 
He  can  be  touched  with  a  sense  of  our  infirmities,  was  tempted  as 
we  are,  was  subject  to  the  law  which  we  violated,  and  endured  the 
penalty  which  we  had  incurred.  In  Him  dwells  all  the  fulness  of 
the  Godhead,  in  a  bodily  form,  in  fashion  as  a  man,  so  as  to  be 
accessible  to  us,  and  so  that  from  his  fulness  we  can  all  partake. 
We  are  therefore  complete  in  Him,  wanting  nothing. 

The  Incarnate  Logos  the  Source  of  Life. 

The  Scriptures  teach  that  the  Logos  is  everlasting  life,  having 
life  in  Himself,  and  the  source  of  life,  physical,  intellectual,  and 
spiritual.  They  further  teach  that  his  incarnation  was  the  neces- 
sary condition  of  the  communication  of  spiritual  life  to  the  children 
of  men.  He,  therefore,  is  the  only  Saviour,  the  only  source  of 
life  to  us.  We  become  partakers  of  this  life,  by  union  with  Him. 
This  union  is  partly  federal  established  in  the  councils  of  eternltv ; 
partly  vital  by  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  partly  volun- 
tary and  conscious  by  faith.  It  is  to  those  who  believe,  to  those 
who  receive  Him  as  God  manifest  in   the  flesh,  that  He  becomes 


§5.]     ERRONEOUS  VIEWS   OF   THE   PERSON   OF   CHRIST.     397 

eternal  life.  For  u  is  not  they  who  live,  but  Christ  who  h'veth  in 
them.  (Gal.  ii.  20.)  The  life  of  the  believer  is  not  a  corporate 
life,  conditioned  on  union  with  any  outward  organization,  called 
the  Church,  for  whosoever  calls  on  the  name  of  the  Lord,  that  is, 
whosoever  religiously  worships  Him  and  looks  to  Him  as  his  God 
and  Saviour,  shall  be  saved,  whether  in  a  dungeon  or  alone  in  a 
desert. 

The  Exaltation  of  the  Human  Nature  of  Christ. 

Another  consequence  of  the  hypostatical  union  is  the  exaltation 
of  the  humanity  of  Christ.  As  the  human  body  in  virtue  of  its 
vital  union  with  an  immortal  soul,  is  immeasurably  exalted  above 
any  mere  material  organization  in  the  universe  (so  far  as  known  or 
revealed),  so  the  humanity  of  Christ  in  virtue  of  its  union  with 
his  divine  nature  is  immeasurably  exalted  in  dignity  and  worth, 
and  even  power  over  all  intelligent  creatures.  The  human  body, 
however,  is  not  now,  and  will  not  be,  even  when  made  like  to 
Christ's  glorious  body,  so  exalted  as  to  cease  to  be  material.  In 
like  manner  the  humanity  of  Christ  is  not  so  exalted  by  its  union 
with  his  divine  nature  as. to  cease  to  be  human.  This  would  break 
the  bond  of  sympathy  between  Him  and  us.  It  has  been  the  pious 
fault  of  some  Christians  that  they  merge  his  humanity  in  his  God- 
head. This  is  as  real,  if  not  so  fatal  an  error,  as  merging  his  God- 
head in  his  humanity.  We  must  hold  fast  to  both.  "  The  Man 
Christ  Jesus,"  and  "  The  God  over  all  blessed  forever,"  is  the  one 
undivided  inseparable  object  of  the  adoration,  love,  and  confidence 
of  the  people  of  God  ;  who  can  each  say,  — 

"  Jesus,  my  God,  I  know  his  name, 
His  name  is  all  my  trust; 
Nor  will  He  put  my  soul  to  sharae, 
Nor  let  my  hope  be  lost." 

§  5.  Erroneous  and  Heretical  Doctrines  on  the  Person  of  Christ. 

Plainly  as  all  the  truths  above  mentioned  concerning  the  person 
of  Christ,  seem  now  to  us  to  be  revealed  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  it 
was  not  until  after  the  conflict  of  six  centuries  that  they  came  to  be 
fully  stated  so  as  to  secure  the  general  assent  of  the  Church.  We 
must  indeed  always  bear  in  mind  the  difference  between  the  specu- 
lations of  theologians  and  the  faith  of  the  great  body  of  the  people 
of  God.  It  is  a  false  assumption  that  the  doctrines  taught  by  the 
ecclesiastical  writers  of  a  particular  age,  constituted  the  faith  of 
believers  of  that  age.  The  doctrines  of  theologians  are  largely 
determined  by  their  antecedents  and  by  the  current  philosophy  of 
the  day  in  which  they  live.    This  is  unavoidable.    The  faith  of  the 


398         PART  III.     Ch.   hi  — the   person   of   CHRIST. 

common  people  is  determined  by  the  Word  of  God,  by  the  worsln'p 
of  the  sanctuary,  and  by  the  teachino;s  of  the  Spirit.  They  remain 
in  a  great  measure  ignorant  of,  or  indifferent  to,  the  speculations 
of  theologians.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  great  body  of  the 
people  from  the  beginning  believed  that  Christ  was  truly  a  man, 
was  truly  God,  and  is  one  person.  They  could  not  read  and  be- 
lieve the  Scriptures  without  having  these  truths  engraved  on  their 
hearts.  All  the  records  of  their  confessions,  hymns,  and  prayers, 
prove  them  to  have  been  the  worshippers  of  Him  who  died  for  their 
sins.  And  in  this  light  they  were  regarded  and  described  by  all 
contemporary  heathen  writers.  But  while  the  people  thus  rested 
in  these  essential  facts,  the  theologians  were  forced  from  without 
and  from  within,  to  ask,  How  can  these  things  be  ?  How  can  the 
same  person  be  both  God  and  man  ?  How  does  the  Godhead  in 
the  person  of  Christ  stand  related  to  his  humanity?  It  was  in  the 
answers  given  to  these  questions  that  difficulty  and  controversy 
occurred.  To  avoid  the  great  and  obvious  difficulties  connected 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  of  God,  some  denied  his  true 
divinity  ;  others  denied  the  reality  or  completeness  of  his  human 
nature  ;  others  so  explained  the  nature  and  effects  of  the  union  as 
to  interfere  either  with  the  integrity  of  the  divine  or  of  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  or  with  the  unity  of  his  person. 

The  Ehionites. 

The  errors  which  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  early  Church  on 
this,  as  on  other  subjects,  arose  either  from  Judaism  or  from  hea- 
then philosophy.  The  Jews  who  professed  themselves  Christians, 
were  not  able,  in  many  instances,  as  we  learn  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment itself,  to  emancipate  themselves  from  their  former  opinions 
and  prejudices.  They  had  by  the  misinterpretation  of  their  Scrip- 
tures been  led  to  expect  a  Messiah  who  was  to  be  the  head  of  their 
nation  as  David  and  Solomon  had  been.  They,  therefore,  as  a 
body,  rejected  Christ,  who  came  as  a  man  of  sorrows,  not  having 
where  to  lay  his  head.  And  of  those  who  were  constrained  by 
his  doctrines  and  miracles  to  acknowledge  Him  as  the  promised 
Messiah,  many  believed  Him  to  be  a  mere  man,  the  son  of  Joseph 
and  Mary,  distinguished  from  other  men  only  by  his  holiness  and 
his  extraordinary  endowments.  This  was  the  case  with  the  sect 
known  as  Ebionites.  Why  so  called  is  a  matter  of  doubt.  Although 
as  a  body,  and  characteristically,  they  entertained  this  low,  human- 
itarian view  of  the  person  of  Christ,  yet  it  appears  from  the  frag- 
mentary records  of  the  ancient  writers,  that  they  differed   much 


§  5.]      ERRONEOUS  VIEWS  OF  THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST.      399 

among  themselves,  and  were  divided  into  different  classes.  Some 
had  mingled  with  their  Jewish  opinions  more  or  less  of  the  ele- 
ments of  the  Gnostic  philosophy.  This  was  the  more  natural,  as 
many  of  the  teachers  of  Gnosticism  were  Jews.  The  fathers, 
therefore,  speak  both  of  Jewish,  and  of  Gnostic  Ebionites.  So  far 
as  their  views  of  Christ's  person  were  modified  by  Gnosticism,  they 
ceased  to  be  distinctly  the  views  of  the  Ebionites  as  a  body. 

Another  class  of  nominal  Jewish  Christians  is  known  as  Naza- 
renes.  They  differed  but  little  from  the  Jewash  Ebionites.  Both 
insisted  on  the  continued  obligation  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  both 
regarded  Christ  as  a  mere  man.  But  the  Nazarenes  acknowledged 
his  miraculous  conception,  and  thus  elevated  Him  above  all  other 
men,  and  regarded  Him  as  the  Son  of  God  in  a  peculiar  sense. 
The  acknowledgment  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  the  ability  and 
willingness  to  unite  in  worship  of  which  He  was  the  object,  was 
from  the  beginning  the  one  indispensable  condition  of  Christian 
fellowship.  These  Jewish  sects,  therefore,  who  denied  his  divinity, 
existed  outside  of  the  Church,  and  were  not  recognized  as  Chris- 
tians. 

The  G^nostics. 

As  the  Ebionites  denied  the  divinity,  so  the  Gnostics  in  different 
ways  denied  his  humanity.  They  were  led  to  this  denial  by  their 
views  of  the  origin  of  evil.  God  is  the  source  only  of  good.  As 
evil  exists  it  must  have  its  origin  not  only  outside  of  Him,  but  inde- 
pendently of  Him.  He  is,  however,  the  source  of  all  spiritual 
existences.  By  emanation  from  his  substance  spiritual  beings  are 
produced  ;  from  them  other  emanations  proceed,  and  from  those 
still  others  in  ever  increasing;  deterioration  according  to  their  dis- 
tance  from  the  primal  fountain.  Evil  arises  from  matter.  The 
world  was  created,  not  by  God,  but  by  an  inferior  spirit,  the  Demi- 
ourgos,  whom  some  sects  of  the  Gnostics  regarded  as  the  God  of 
the  Jews.  Man  consists  of  a  spirit  derived  from  God  combined 
with  a  material  body  and  an  animal  soul.  By  this  union  of  the 
spiritual  with  the  material,  the  spirit  is  defiled  and  enslaved.  Its 
redemption  consists  in  its  emancipation  from  the  body,  so  as  to 
enable  it  to  reenter  the  sphere  of  pure  spirits,  or  to  be  lost  in  God. 
To  effect  this  redemption,  Christ,  one  of  the  highest  emanations 
from  God  (or  -^ons),  came  into  the  world.  It  was  necessary 
that  He  should  appear  "  in  fashion  as  a  man,"  but  it  was  impossible 
He  should  become  a  man,  without  subjecting  Himself  to  the  pollu- 
tion and  bondage  from  wliicli  He  came  to  deliver  men.  To  meet 
this  difficulty  various  theories  were  adopted.    Some  held  that  Christ 


400         PART  m.     Ch.  III.  — the   person   of   CHRIST. 

had  no  real  body  or  human  soul.  His  earthly  manifestation  in 
human  form  was  a  phantasm,  a  mere  appearance  without  substance 
or  reality.  Hence  they  were  called  Docetse,  from  the  Greek  verb 
SoKco),  which  means  to  appear,  to  seem  to  he.  According  to  this 
class  of  the  Gnostics,  Christ's  wliole  earthly  life  was  an  illusion. 
He  was  not  born,  nor  did  he  suffer  or  die.  Others  admitted  that 
he  had  a  real  body,  but  denied  that  it  was  material.  They  taught 
that  it  was  formed  of  some  ethereal  or  celestial  substance,  and 
brought  by  Christ  into  the  world.  Although  born  of  the  virgin 
Mary,  it  was  not  of  her  substance,  but  only  through  her  as  the 
mould  in  which  this  ethereal  substance  was  cast.  Hence  in  the 
ancient  creeds  it  is  said  that  Christ  was  born,  not  jt»gr,  but  ex  Maria 
virgine,  which  is  explained  to  mean  ex  substantia  matris  suce.  It 
was  also  in  opposition  to  this  Gnostic  heresy  tliat  the  ancient  creeds 
emphasized  the  declaration  that  Christ,  as  to  his  human  nature,  is 
consubstantial  with  us.  Others,  as  the  Cerinthians,  lield  that  Jesus 
and  Christ  were  distinct.  Jesus  was  an  ordinary  man,  the  son  of 
Joseph  and  Mary.  Christ  was  a  spirit  or  power  which  descended 
on  Jesus  at  his  baptism,  and  became  his  guide  and  guardian,  and 
enabled  Him  to  work  miracles.  At  the  time  of  his  passion,  the 
Christ  departed,  returning  into  heaven,  leaving  the  man  Jesus  to 
suffer  alone.  As  nothing  is  more  distinctly  revealed  in  Scripture, 
and  nothing  is  more  essential  to  Christ's  being  the  Saviour  of  men, 
than  that  he  should  be  truly  a  man,  all  these  Gnostic  theories  were 
rejected  as  heretical. 

The  ApolUnarian  Doctrine. 

As  the  Gnostic  doctrine  which  denied  entirely  the  human  nature 
of  Christ  was  rejected,  the  next  attempt  was  directed  against  the  in- 
tegrity of  that  nature.  Many  of  the  early  fathers,  especially  of  the 
Alexandrian  school,  had  presented  views  of  this  element  of  Christ's 
person,  which  removed  Him  more  or  less  from  the  class  of  ordi- 
nary men.  They  nevertheless  maintained  that  He  was  truly  a 
man.  The  Apollinarians,  so  called  from  Apollinaris,  a  distinguished 
bishop  of  Laodicea,  adopting  the  Platonic  distinction  between  the 
croiiJ.a,  xpvxq  and  TTi^ev/xa,  as  three  distinct  subjects  or  principles  in  the 
constitution  of  man,  admitted  that  Christ  had  a  true  body  (o-w/y-a) 
and  animal  soul  Qlivyyf),  but  not  a  rational  spirit,  or  mind  (jvivixa 
or  vov<i).  In  Him  the  eternal  Son,  or  Logos,  supplied  the  place  of 
the  human  intelligence.  The  Apollinarians  were  led  to  the  adop- 
tion of  this  theory  partly  from  the  difficulty  of  conceiving  how  two 
complete  natures  can  be  united  in  one  life  and  consciousness.     If 


§  5.]      ERRONEOUS  VIEWS  OF  THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST.      401 

Christ  be  God,  or  the  divine  Logos,  He  must  have  an  infinite 
intelligence  and  an  almighty  will.  If  a  perfect  man.  He  must  have 
a  finite  intelligence  and  a  human  will.  How  then  can  He  be  one 
person  ?  This  is  indeed  incomprehensible  ;  but  it  involves  no  con- 
tradiction. Apollinaris  admitted  that  the  ipvxrj  and  Trvev/xa  in  ordi- 
nary men,  although  two  distinct  principles,  are  united  in  one  life 
and  consciousness.  The  i/'^x^  has  its  own  life  and  intelligence,  and 
so  has  the  Trvetj/^a,  and  yet  the  two  are  one.  But  a  second  and 
strong  inducement  to  adopting  the  Apollinarian  theory,  was  the 
doctrine  then  held,  by  many,  at  least,  of  the  Platonizing  fath.ers, 
that  reason  in  man  is  part  of  the  divine  Logos  or  universal  reason. 
So  that  the  difference  between  man  and  God,  so  far  as  man's  intel- 
ligence is  concerned,  is  merely  quantitive.  If  this  be  so,  it  is  in- 
deed difficult  to  conceive  how  there  should  be  in  Christ  both  a  part 
of  the  Logos  and  the  entire  Logos.  The  part  would  be  necessarily 
superseded  by  the  whole,  or  comprehended  in  it.  But  notwith- 
standing the  force  of  this  ad  hominem  argument  as  directed  against 
some  of  his  opponents,  the  conviction  of  the  Church  was  so  strong 
that  Christ  was  a  perfect  man,  possessing  within  Himself  all  the  ele- 
ments of  our  nature,  that  the  Apollinarian  doctrine  was  condemned 
in  the  general  council  held  in  Constantinople,  a.  d.  381,  and  soon 
disappeared. 

Nestorianism. 

The  integrity  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  having  been  thus  as- 
serted and  declared  to  be  the  faith  of  the  Church,  the  next  ques- 
tion which  arose  concerned  the  relations  of  the  two  natures,  the 
one  to  the  other,  in  the  one  person  of  Christ.  Nestorianism  is  the 
designation  adopted  in  church  history,  for  the  doctrine  which 
either  affii-ms,  or  implies  a  twofold  personality  in  our  Lord.  The 
divine  Logos  was  represented  as  dwelling  in  the  man  Christ  Jesus, 
so  that  the  union  between  the  two  natures  was  somewhat  analogous 
to  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit.  The  true  divinity  of  Christ  was 
thus  endangered.  He  was  distinguished  from  other  men  in  whom 
God  dwelt,  only  by  the  plenitude  of  the  divine  presence,  and  the 
absolute  control  of  the  divine  over  the  human.  This  was  not  the 
avowed  or  real  doctrine  of  Nestorius,  but  it  was  the  doctrine 
charged  upon  him,  and  was  the  conclusion  to  which  his  principles 
were  supposed  to  lead.  Nestorius  was  a  man  of  great  excellence 
and  eminence ;  first  a  presbyter  in  Antioch,  and  afterwards 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  The  controversy  on  this  subject 
arose  from  his  defending  one  of  his  presbyters  who  denied  that  the 
Virgin   Mary  could  properly  be  called  the  Mother  of  God.     As 

VOL.  II.  26 


402         PART  III.     Ch.   m.  — the   person    of   CHRIST. 

this  designation  of  the  blessed  Virgin  had  ah'eady  received  the 
sanction  of  the  Church,  and  was  familiar  and  dear  to  the  people, 
Nestorius's  objection  to  its  use  excited  general  and  violent  opposi- 
tion. He  was  on  this  account  alone  accused  of  heresy.  As,  how- 
ever, there  is  a  sense  in  which  Mary  was  the  Mother  of  God,  and 
a  sense  in  which  such  a  designation  is  blasphemous,  everything 
depends  on  the  real  meaning  attached  to  the  terms.  What  Nesto- 
rius  meant,  according  to  his  own  statement,  was  simply  that  God, 
the  divine  nature,  could  nefther  be  born  nor  die.  In  his  third  let- 
ter to  Coelestin,  Bishop  of  Rome,  he  said,  "  Ego  autem  ad  banc 
quidem  vocem,  quae  est  ^cotokos,  nisi  secundum  Apollinaris  et  Arii 
furorem  ad  confusionem  naturarum  proferatur,  volentibus  dicere 
non  resisto  ;  nee  tamen  ambigo  quia  haec  vox  OeoTOKa  illi  voci  cedat, 
quae  est  xpio"''0''"OKos,  tanquam  prolataj  ab  Angelis  et  evangelistis." 
What    he    asserted  was,   "Non    peperit    creatura    creatorem,   sed 

peperit  hominem  deitatis   instrumentum Spiritus  sanctus 

.  .  .  Deo  Verbo  templum  fabricatus  est,  quod  habitaret,  ex  vir- 
gine."  Nevertheless,  he  obviously  carried  the  distinction  of  na- 
tures too  far,  for  neither  he  nor  his  followers  could  bring  them- 
selves to  use  the  Scriptural  language,  "  The  Church  of  God  whidi 
he  purchased  with  his  blood."  The  Syriac  version  used  by  the 
Nestorians,  reads  Xpto-ros  instead  of  ©eos  in  Acts  xx.  28.  The 
principal  opponent  of  Nestorius  was  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  who 
secured  his  condemnation  by  violent  means  in  the  Synod  of  Ephe- 
sus  in  A.  D.  431.  This  irregular  decision  was  resisted  by  the 
Greek  and  Syrian  bishops,  so  that  the  controversy,  for  a  time  at 
least,  was  a  conflict  between  these  two  sections  of  the  Church. 
Ultimately  Nestorius  was  deposed  and  banished,  and  died  a.  d. 
440.  His  followers  removed  eastward  to  Persia,  and  organized 
themselves  into  a  separate  communion,  which  continues  until  this 

day. 

Uiift/ehiamsm. 

As  Nestorius  so  divided  the  two  natures  in  Christ  as  almost  to 
necessitate  the  assumption  of  two  persons,  his  opponents  were  led 
to  the  opposite  extreme.  Instead  of  two,  they  insisted  that  there 
was  but  one  nature  in  Christ.  Cyril  himself  had  taught  what 
clearly  implied  this  idea.  According  to  Cyril  there  is  but  one 
nature  in  Christ  because  by  the  incarnation,  or  hypostatlcal  union, 
the  human  was  changed  into  the  divine.^  With  the  extreme  Alex- 
andrian theologians,  the  humanity  of  Christ  was  ignored.  It  was 
the  Logos  who  was  born,  the  Logos  who  suffered  and  died.     All 

1  See  Dorner,  Hagenbach,  and  Munscher,  on  this  controversy. 


§  5.]       ERRONEOUS  VIEAVS  OF  THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST.      403 

about  Christ  was  divine,  even  his  body.^  The  opjDosition  between 
the  Syrian  and  Egyptian  bishops  (Antioch  and  Alexandria)  be- 
came so  pronounced,  that  any  distinction  of  natures  in  Christ  was 
by  the  latter  denounced  as  Nestorianism.  It  was  Eutyches,  how- 
ever, a  presbyter  of  Constantinople,  one  of  the  most  strenuous  ad- 
vocates of  the  views  of  Cyril  and  an  opponent  of  Nestorius,  who 
became  the  representative  of  this  doctrine  which  has  since  gone  by 
his  name.  He  was  accused  of  heresy  on  this  account,  and  con- 
demned in  a  Council  called  by  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople. 
Eutyches  admitted  that  before  the  incarnation  there  were  two 
natures,  but  afterwards  only  one.    '0/ioXoyw  eV  8vo  <f)vcr€uiv  yeyewrjo-Oat 

Tov  Kvpiov  TjfxCiV  irpo  rrj^  ivwcreCys,  /uera   8c  rrjv   kvwcnv,  jxiav  (jtvaiv   6/xoAoyw. 

But  what  was  that  nature  which  resulted  from  the  union  of  the 
two  ?  The  human  might  be  exalted  into  the  divine,  or  lost  in  it, 
as  a  drop  of  vinegar  (to  use  one  of  the  illustrations  then  em- 
ployed) in  the  ocean.  Then  Christ  ceased  to  be  a  man.  And  as 
the  union  of  the  two  natures  commenced  from  the  beginning,  the 
whole  of  Christ's  human  earthly  life  became  an  illusion,  or  empty 
show.  Where  then  are  his  redeeming  work,  and  his  bond  of 
union  or  sympathy  with  us  ?  Or  the  effect  of  the  union  might  be 
to  merge  the  divine  into  the  human,  so  that  the  one  nature  was 
after  all  only  the  nature  of  man.  Then  the  true  divinity  of  Christ 
was  denied,  and  we  have  only  a  human  saviour.  Or  the  effect  of 
the  union  of  the  two  natures  was  the  production  of  a  third,  which 
was  neither  human  nor  divine,  but  theanthropic,  as  in  chemical 
combinations  an  acid  and  an  alkali  when  united,  produce  a  sub- 
stance which  is  no  longer  either  acid  or  alkaline.  Then  Christ 
instead  of  being  God  and  man,  is  neither  God  nor  man.  This 
being  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  and  placing  Christ  out  of  the 
range  of  human  sympathies,  was  opposed  to  the  intimate  convic- 
tions of  the  Church. 

The  condemnation  of  Eut^^ches  at  Constantinople  greatly  in- 
censed Dioscurus,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  and  his  associates. 
Through  his  influence  a  general  synod  was  convened  at  Ephesus 
in  449  A.  D.,  from  which  the  opposers  of  Eutyches  were  forcibly 
excluded,  and  his  doctrine  of  one  nature  in  Christ  formally  sanc- 
tioned. The  Council  proceeded  to  exconmiunicate  those  who 
taught  a  contrary  doctrine,  and  Eutyches  was  restored  to  office. 
The  doctrines  of  the  Council  (known  in  history  as  "  the  robber 
council")  were  sanctioned  by  the  emperor  Theodosius.  But  as 
he  died  in  the  following  year,  his  successor  being  hostile  to  Dios- 

1  Neander,  Dvgmengeschichte,  vol.  i.  p.  349. 


404         PART  III.     Ch.  m.  —  the   person   of   CHRIST.  . 

curus,  summoned  another  general  synod,  which  met  at  Chalcedon, 
A.  D.  451.     Here  Dioscurus  was  deposed,  and  the  letter  of  Leo  of 
Rome  to  Flavian  of  Constantinople  was  adopted  as  a  true  exposi- 
tion of  the   faith  of  the   Church.     Agreeably  to    the  distinctions 
contained  in  that  letter  the  Council  framed  its  confession,  in  which 
it  is  said,^  "  We  teach  that  Jesus  Christ  is  perfect  as  respects  God- 
head, and  perfect  as  respects  manhood ;  that  He  is  truly  God,  and 
truly  a  man  consisting  of  a  rational  soul  and  a  body ;  that  He  is 
consubstantial  with  the  Father  as  to  his  divinity,  and  consubstan- 
tial  with  us  as  to   his  humanity,  and  like  us  in  all  respects,  sin 
excepted.     He  was   begotten  of  the   Father  before  creation   (n-po 
aiwvcuv)    as  to  his   deity  ;  but  in  these  last  days  He,  for  us,  and 
for  our    salvation,   was  born  of  Mary  the   Virgin,  the  mother  of 
God  as  to  his  humanity.     He  is  one  and  the  same  Christ,  Lord, 
only  begotten,  existing  in  two   natures  without  mixture,  without 
change,  without  division,  without  separation  ;  the  diversity  of  the 
two  natures  not  being  at  all  destroyed  by  their  union  in  the  one 
person,  but  rather  the  peculiar  property  of  each  nature  being  pre- 
served, and  concurring  to  one  person,  and  one  subsistence."     This 
was  one  of  the  six  general  Councils  in  whose  doctrinal  decisions  all 
Protestants,  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  professed  their  agree- 
ment.    The  Latin  Church  received  this  confession  of  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon  cheerfully,  but  it  met  with  great  opposition  in  some 
parts,  and  especially  in  Palestine  and  Egypt,  and  tlierefoi'e  did  not 
bring  the  controversy  on  this  subject  to  an  end.     This  conflict  re- 
sulted in  great  disorders  and  bloodshed  in  Palestine  and  Egypt,  and 
in  Constantinople  even  in  revolution  ;  one   Emperor  was  deposed, 
and  another  enthroned.     After  nearly  two  centuries  of  controversy, 
the  Emperor  Heraclius  endeavoured  to  effect  a  reconciliation  by 
getting  both  parties  to  admit  that  there  are  two  natures  in  Christ, 
but  only  one  will  and  operation,  jxia  OeavSpLK-rj  ivepyeia.     This  effort 
was  so  far  successful  that  a  portion  of  the  Monophysites  assented 
to  this  modification  of  the  creed  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  ;  but 
the  more  determined  of  that  party  and  the  great  body  of  tiie  ortho- 
dox refused.     The  controversy  turned  after  this  specially  on  the 
question  whether  thei'e  is  one  only,  or  two  wills  in  Christ.    If  only 
one,  then,  as  the  orthodox  asserted,  there  could  be  but  one  nature, 
for  will  is  one  of  the  essential  elements  or  faculties  of  a  rational 
nature.     To  deny  Christ  a  human  will,  was  to  deny  that  He  had  a 
human  nature,  or  was  truly  a  man.     Besides,  it  precluded  the  pos- 
sibility of  his  having  been  tempted,  and  therefore  contradicted  the 

1  Acta  Quinta,  Binius,  Concilia  Generalia,  vol.  ii.  part  i.  p.  253,  e.  f. 


§  6.]     DOCTRINE  OF  THE  REFORMED  CHURCHES.     405 

Scriptures,  and  separated  Him  so  far  from  his  people  that  He  could 
not  sympathize  with  them  in  their  temptations.  The  effort  of 
Heraclius  therefore  proved  abortive,  and  the  controversy  continued 
with  unabated  acrimony,  until  finally  the  sixth  general  council  held 
at  Constantinople,  a.  d.  681,  authoritatively  decided  in  favour  of 
the  doctrine  that  in  the  one  person  of  Christ,  as  there  are  two  dis- 
tinct natures,  human  and  divine,  there  are  of  necessity  two  intelli- 
gences and  two  wills,  the  one  fallible  and  finite,  the  other  immuta- 
ble and  infinite.  Christ  was  tempted,  and  there  was,  therefore,  the 
metaphysical  possibility  that  He  should  have  yielded.  According 
to  this  Council  the  person  of  Christ  was  not  only  formed,^  (k  Svo 
<f>v(T€(ji)v,  but  consists  since  the  hypostatic  union  cf  Svo  (^uo-eo-t,  and  it 
says  in  the  name  of  the  Church  that  there  are  Suo  <fivcTiKa<;  ^cA-T/o-eis 

T/TOt  OekrjjxaTa  iv  auro),  koi  8vo  ^vcrtKas  evcpyctas  dStatp€Ta)S,  drpeTrTO)?, 
d/xepicTTO)?,   dcruy^wTws    Kara    Tr]V   twv    dytwv    Trarepuiv   SiSaaKaXuav  wcraurws 

KrjpvTTOjjiev.  The  Monothelites  being  thus  condemned  were  perse- 
cuted and  driven  eastward,  where  they  have  perpetuated  them- 
selves in  the  sect  of  the  Maronites. 

With  this  council  the  conflict  on  this  doctrine  so  far  ceased  that 
there  has  since  been  no  further  modification  of  the  Church  doctrine. 
The  decision  against  Nestorius,  in  which  the  unity  of  Christ's  pei'son 
was  asserted;  that  against  Eutyches,  affirming  the  distinction  of 
natures  ;  and  that  against  the  Monothelites,  declaring  that  the 
possession  of  a  human  nature  involves  of  necessity  the  possession 
of  a  human  will,  have  been  received  as  the  true  faith  by  the  Church 
universal,  the  Greek,  Latin,  and  Protestant. 

During  the  Middle  Ages,  although  the  person  of  Christ  Avas  the 
subject  of  diverse  speculations  on  the  part  of  individual  writers, 
there  was  no  open  or  organized  opposition  to  the  decisions  of  the 
above  named  councils. 

§  6.  Doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches. 

At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  the  Reformed  adhered  strictly 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  early  Church.  This  is  apparent  from  the 
different  Confessions  adopted  by  the  several  Reformed  bodies, 
especially  from  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession,  which,  as  will  be 
seen,  reviews  and  rejects  all  the  ancient  heresies  on  this  subject, 
and  repeats  and  adopts  the  language  of  the  ancient  creeds.  In  this 
Confession  it  is  said  :  ^  "  Credimus  praeterea  et  docemus  filium  Dei 
Dominum  nostrum  Jesum  Christum  ab  seterno  proedestinatum  vel 

1  Binius,  Concilia  Generalia,  Cologne,  1618,  vol.  iii.  part  i.  sect.  i.  pp.  2-30,  231. 

2  XI.;  Niemeyer,  CoUectin  Confessionum,  pp.  48.3-485. 


406         PART  III.     Ch.   Ill  — the   person   OF   CHRIST. 

priBordlnatum  esse,  a  Patre,  salvatorem  mundi :  credimusque  hunc 
esse  genitum,  non  tantum,  cum  ex  virgine  Maria  carnem  assumsit, 
nee  tantum  ante  jacta  fundamenta  mundi,  sed  ante  omnem  aeterni- 

tatem,  et  quideni,  a  Patre,  inefFabiliter Proinde  Filius  est 

Patri  juxta  divinitatem  cojequalis  et  consubstantialis,  Deus  verus, 
non  nuiicupatione,  aut  adoptione,  aut  ulla  dignatione,  sed  substantia 

atque  natura Abominamur  ergo  Arii  et  omnium  Ariano- 

rum  impiam  contra  filium  Dei  doctrinam Eundem  quoque 

jfiterni  Dei  feternum  filium  credimus  et  docemus  hominis  factum 
esse  filium,  ex  semine  Abrahte  atque  Davidis,  non  ex  viri  coitu, 
quod  Hebion  dixit,  sed  conceptum  purissime  ex  Spiritu  Sancto,  et 
natum  ex  Maria  semper  virgine :  .  .  .  .  Caro  ergo  Christi,  nee 
phantastica  fuit,  nee  coelitus  allata,  sicuti  Valentinus  et  Martion 
somniabant.  Prceterea  anima  fuit  Domino  nostro  non  absque  sensu 
et  ratione,  ut  Apollinaris  sentiebat,  neque  caro  absque  anima,  ut 
Eunomius  docebat,  sed  anima  cum  ratione  sua,  et  caro  cum  sensi- 
bus    suis,  per  quos  sensus,  veros  dolores   tempore    passionis  suas 

sustinuit Agnoscimus  ergo  in  uno  atque    eodem  Domino 

nostro  Jesu  Christo,  duas  naturas  [vel  substantias,  as  it  is  in  sev- 
eral editions],  divinam  et  humanam  :  et  has  ita  dicimus  conjunctas 
et  unitas  esse,  ut  absorptse,  aut  confusae,  aut  immixtae  non  sint : 
sed  salvis  potius  et  permanentibus  naturarum  proprietatibus,  in  una 
persona,  unitas  et  conjunctae:  ita  ut  unum  Christum  Dominum,  non 
duos  veneremur:  unum  inquam  verum' Deum  et  hominem,  juxta 
divinam  naturam  Patri,  juxta  humanam  vero  nobis  homiiiibus  con- 
substantialem,  et  per  omnia  similem,  peccato  excepto.  Etenim,  ut 
Nestorianum  dogma  ex  uno  Christo  duos  faciens,  et  unionem  per- 
sonae  dissolvens,  abominamur :  ita  Eutychetis  et  Monothelitarum  vel 
Monophysicorum  vesaniam,  expungentem  naturse  humanae  proprie- 
tatem  execramur  penitus.  Ergo  minime  docemus  naturam  in  Christo 
divinam  passam  esse,  aut  Christum  secundum  humanam  naturam 
adhuc  esse  in  hoc  mundo,  adeoque  esse  ubique.  Neque  enim  vel 
sentimus,  vel  docemus  veritatem  corporis  Christi  a  clarificatione 
desiisse,  aut  deificatam,  adeoque  sic  deificatam  esse,  ut  suas  proprie- 
tates,  quoad  coi'pus  et  animam,  deposuerit,  ac  prorsus  in  naturam 

divinam   abierat,  unaque  duntaxat  substantia  esse  coeperit 

Prjfiterea  credimus  Domiimm  nostrum  Jesum  Christum,  vere  passum 
et  mortuum  esse  pro  nobis Interim  non  negamus  et  Dom- 
inum gloriae,  juxta  verba  Pauli,  crucifixum  esse  pro  nobis.  Nam 
communicationem  idiomatum,  ex  scripturis  petitam,  et  ab  universa 
vetustate  in  explicandis  componendisque  scripturarum  locis  in  spe- 
cieni  ])ugnantibus  usurpatam,  religiose  et  reverenter  recipimus  et 
usurpamus." 


§  7.]  LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE.  407 

It  thus  appears  that  the  Reformed  distinctly  rejected  all  the 
errors  concerning  the  person  of  Christ,  condemned  in  the  early 
Church  ;  the  Arian,  the  Ebionitic,  the  Gnostic,  the  Apollinarian, 
the  Nestorian,  the  Eutychian,  and  the  Monotlielite,  as  well  as  the 
peculiar  Lutheran  doctrine  introduced  at  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. The  Reformed  taught  what  the  fii'st  six  general  councils 
taught,  and  what  the  Cimrch  universal  received,  —  neither  more 
nor  less.  With  this  agrees  the  beautifully  clear  and  precise  state- 
ment of  the  Westminster  Confession :  "  Tiie  Son  of  God,  the  second 
person  in  the  Trinity,  being  very  and  eternal  God,  of  one  substance, 
and  equal  with  the  Father,  did,  when  the  fulness  of  time  was  come, 
take  upon  Him  man's  nature,  and  and  all  the  essential  properties 
and  common  infirmities  thei'eof,  yet  witliout  sin  :  being  conceived 
by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Marv, 
of  her  substance.  So  tliat  two  whole,  perfect,  and  distinct  natures, 
the  Godhead  and  the  manhood,  were  inseparably  joined  together 
in  one  person,  without  conversion,  composition,  or  confusion. 
Which  person  is  very  God  and  very  man,  yet  one  Christ,  the  only 
mediator  between  God  and  man."  ^ 

§  7.  Lutheran  Doctrine. 

The  Lutherans  in  their  symbols  adopt  all  the  doctrinal  decisions 
of  the  early  Church  respecting  the  person  of  Christ.  They  there- 
fore hold,  (1.)  That  Christ  is  very  God  and  very  man.  (2.)  That 
He  has  two  distinct  natures,  a  human  and  divine  ;  that  as  to  the 
latter  He  is  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  and  as  to  the  former 
He  is  consubstantial  with  men.  (3.)  That  He  is  one  person. 
There  is  one  Clu'ist  and  not  two.  (4.)  That  the  two  natures  are 
intimately  united,  but  without  confusion  or  change.  Each  nature 
retains  its  own  peculiar  properties.  Nevertheless  they  hold  that 
the  attributes  of  the  one  nature  were  communicated  to  the  other. 
They  admit  a  "  communio  idiomatum  "  in  the  sense  that  what- 
ever is  true  of  either  nature  is  true  of  the  person.  But  beyond 
this  they  insist  upon  a  "  communicatio  naturarum."  And  by  na- 
ture, in  this  connection,  they  mean  essence.  Li  their  symbols  and 
writings  the  formula  "  natura,  seu  substantia,  seu  essentia  "  is  of 
frequent  occurrence.  The  divine  essence  is  commvmicated  to  the 
human.  The  one  interpenetrates  the  other.  They  "  are  mixed  " 
(commiscentur^.  They  do  not  become  one  essence,  but  remain 
two  ;  yet  where  the  one  is  the  other  is  ;  what  the  one  does  the 
other  does.     The  human  is  as  truly  divine  as  the  eternal  essence 

1  Chap.  viii.  §  2. 


408         PART  in.     Ch.   m.  — the   person   of   CHRIST. 

of  the  Godhead,  except  that  it  is  not  divine  ex  se,  but  by  commu- 
nication. (5.)  As  however  it  would  be  derogatory  to  the  divine 
nature  to  suppose  it  to  be  subject  to  the  hmitations  and  infirmities 
of  humanity,  this  communication  of  attributes  is  said  to  be  confined 
to  the  human  nature.  It  receives  divine  perfections;  but  the  divine 
receives  nothing  from  the  human.  (6.)  The  human  nature  of 
Christ,  therefore,  is  almighty,  omniscient,  and  everywhere  present 
both  as  to  soul  and  body.  (7.)  As  this  transfer  of  divine  attributes 
from  the  divine  to  the  human  nature  is  the  consequence  of  the 
incarnation,  or  rather  constitutes  it,  it  began  when  the  incarnation 
began,  and  consequently  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 
(8.)  The  humiliation  of  Christ  consisted  mainly  in  the  hiding  or 
not  using  the  divine  perfections  of  his  human  nature  while  here  on 
earth  ;  and  his  exaltation  in  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  glory 
of  his  humanity.  On  this  subject  the  "  Form  of  Concord  "  ^  says, 
"  Eamque  Majestatem,  ratione  unionis  personalis,  semper  Christus 
habuit:  sed  in  statu  suse  humiliationis  sese  exinanivit;  qua  de  causa 
revera  aetate,  sapientia  et  gratia  apud  Deum  atque  homines  profe- 
cit.  Quare  majestatem  illam  non  semper,  sed  quoties  ipsi  visum 
fuit,  exseruit,  donee  formam  servi,  non  autem  naturam  humanam, 
post  resurrectionem  plene  et  prorsus  deponeret,  ut  in  plenariam 
usurpationem,  manifestationem  et  declarationem  divinae  majesta- 
tis  collocaretur,  et  hoc  modo  in  gloriam  suam  ingrederetur." 
(9.)  Nevertheless  Christ  while  here  on  earth,  and  even  when  in 
the  womb  of  the  Virgin,  was  as  to  his  soul  and  body  everywhere 
present. 

The  above  statement  is  believed  to  be  a  correct  exhibition  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church  as  presented  in  the  eighth  chapter 
of  the  "  Form  of  Concord."  There  is,  however,  no  little  difficulty 
in  determining  what  the  Lutheran  doctrine  really  is.  The  Chris- 
tology  of  Luther,  although  very  clear  and  pronounced  on  certain 
points,  was  indefinite  and  doubtful  in  others.  His  successors  dif- 
fered seriously  among  themselves.  It  was  one  of  the  principal 
objects  of  the  "  Form  of  Concord "  to  settle  the  matters  in 
dispute.  This  was  done  by  compromise.  Both  parties  made 
concessions,  and  yet  both  insisted  upon  the  assertion  of  their 
peculiar  views  in  one  part  or  other  of  that  document.  It  is,  there- 
fore, difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  reconcile  some  portions  of  the 
"  Form  of  Concord  "  with  others.  It  did  not  in  fact  put  an  end 
to  the  divisions  which  it  was  designed  to  heal. 

1  VIII.  16 ;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolici,  p.  608. 


§  7.]  LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE.  409 

Different  Views  among  the  IJutherans. 

The  principal  points  of  difference  among  the  Lutheran  divines 
concerning  the  person  of  Christ  were  the  following:  The  nature 
and  effects  of  the  union  of  natures  in  Christ ;  the  ground  of  that 
union  ;  and  the  time  of  its  occurrence.  The  Reformed  Church 
in  adhering  to  the  doctrine  as  it  liad  been  settled  in  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  maintained  that  there  is  such  an  essential  difference 
between  the  divine  and  human  natures  that  the  one  could  not 
become  tlie  other,  and  that  the  one  was  not  capable  of  receiving 
the  attributes  of  the  other.  If  God  became  the  subject  of  the  lim- 
itations of  humanity  He  would  cease  to  be  God ;  and  if  man 
received  the  attributes  of  God  he  would  cease  to  be  man.  This 
was  regarded  as  a  self-evident  truth.  The  "  communion  of 
attributes  "  which  the  Reformed,  in  accordance  with  the  common 
faith  of  the  Church,  admitted,  concerned  only  the  person  and  not 
the  natures  of  Christ.  Christ  possessed  all  the  attributes  of  human- 
ity and  of  divinity,  but  the  two  natures  remained  distinct ;  just  as 
a  man  is  the  subject  of  all  that  can  be  predicated  of  his  body  and 
of  his  soial,  although  the  attributes  of  the  one  are  not  predicable  of 
the  otlier.  The  Lutherans  maintained  that,  according  to  this  view, 
the  two  natures  were  as  separate  as  duo  asseres  agglutinatos. 
This  they  pronounced  to  be  no  real  incarnation.  The  Reformed 
acknowledged  that  Jesus  Christ  the  son  of  the  Virgin  Mary  is  a 
divine  person,  but  denied  that  his  human  nature  was  divine.  The 
Lutherans  maintained  that  man  became  God,  and  that  the  human 
did  become  divine.  Otherwise,  Ciirist  as  clothed  in  our  nature, 
could  not  be  an  object  of  divine  worship.  As  though  we  could  not 
reverence  a  man  unless  we  believed  that  the  attributes  of  his  mind 
were  transferred  to  his  body. 

Althoucrh  the  Lutheran  theolofjians  agree  as  to  the  fact  that  the 
man  Christ  Jesus  became  God,  they  differ  as  to  the  mode  in  which 
this  was  accomplished.  Their  language  as  to  the  fact  is  as  strong 
as  it  can  be  made.  Thus  Brentius,  the  friend  of  Luther  and  the 
Reformer  of  Wiirtemberg,  in  his  work  "  De  Personali  Unione," 
says.  If  the  Logos  "  did  not  intend  to  remain  either  personali}'  or 
with  his  nature  outside  of  Christ,  but  purposed  to  become  man.  He 
must  needs  exalt  the  humanity  into  his  own  majesty.  Therein,  in 
fact,  consists  the  incarnation,  that  the  man  Christ  not  merely  never 
existed  or  worked  without  the  Logos,  but  also  that  the  Logos  never 
existed  or  worked  without  the  man,  whom  He  had  assumed  ;  and 
as  this  was  only  possible  through  the  elevation  of  the  humanity  to 


410         PART   III.     Ch.   m.  —  the   person    of  CHRIST. 

equal  dignity  with  the  Logos,  the  incarnation  consists  precisely  in 
this  elevation,  —  the  one  is  identical  with  the  other."  ^  "  Accord- 
ing to  the  philosophy  of  Zwingli,  there  is  no  proportion  between 
the  finite  and  the  infinite  ;  hut  in  the  philosophy  of  God,  finite 
humanity  also  may  become  infinite."  '^  The  human  nature  of 
Christ,  therefore,  possesses  all  divine  attributes.  It  fills  heaven  and 
earth.  It  is  omniscient  and  almighty.  In  the  "Form  of  Concord"^ 
it  is  said,  "  Itaque  non  tantum  ut  Deus,  verum  etiam  ut  homo, 
omnia  novit,  omnia  potest,  omnibus  creaturis  pr^esens  est,  et  omnia, 
quae  in  coelis,  in  terris  et  sub  terra  sunt,  sub  pedibus  suis  et  in  manu 
sua  habet."  And  again,*  "  Non  in  Christo  sunt  duae  separatae 
personae,  sed  unica  tantum  est  persona.  Ubicunque  ea  est,  ibi  est 
unica  tantum  et  indivisa  persona.  Et  ubicunque  recte  dixeris : 
hie  est  Deus,  ibi  fateri  oportet,  et  dicere,  ergo  etiam  Christus  homo 
adest."  This  beinff  the  case,  it  beino;  admitted  that  man  becomes 
God,  that  the  human  becomes  divine,  the  finite  infinite,  the  question 
arises.  How  can  this  be  ?  How  is  divinity  thus  communicated  to 
humanity  ?  It  is  in  the  answer  to  these  questions  that  the  diversi- 
ties and  inconsistencies  in  the  views  not  only  of  theologians  but  also 
of  the  symbolical  books,  appear.  It  was  a  principle  with  the 
Wittenbei'g  school  of  the  Lutheran  theologians  that  human  nature 
is  not  capable  of  divinity.  This  is  true  also  of  Chemnitz,  the  great- 
est of  the  divines  of  the  age  after  tiie  Reformation.  In  his  work 
"  De  Duabus  Naturis  in  Christo,  de  Hypostatica  Earum  Unione, 
de  Communicatione  Idiomatum,"  etc.,  says  Dorner,  "he  controverts 
in  the  most  vigorous  manner,  a  '  physica,  naturalis  communicatio,' 
or  '  transfusio  idiomatum  ;  '  and  no  less  earnestly  does  he  deny 
the  'capacitas'  of  a  '  natura  finita'  for  the  'infinitum,'  if  it  signify- 
more  than  that  the  divine  can  dwell  and  work  in  man."  ^  As  to 
the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body,  the  dissent  was  still  more  decided.^ 
Yet  this  idea  of  the  capacity  of  human  nature  for  divinity  became 

1  History  of  the  Development  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  by  Dr.  J.  A.  Dorner. 
Translated  by  Rev.  D.  W.  Simon.  Edinburgh,  T.  and  T.  Clark.  1862.  Division  ii.  vol. 
ii.  p.  180.  '^  Ibid.  p.  183. 

3  VIII  16;  Hase,  Lihri  SymboUci,  p.  608. 

4  VIII.  82;  Ibid.  p.  784. 

fi  Dorner,  Div.  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  200. 

6  On  this  point  Dorner,  on  page  240,  note,  says,  "  Selnekker  designates  the  '  Ubiquitas 
absoluta  tigmentum  Sathanai'  (Chemnitz,  a  '  monstnim  '  and  '  portentum'),  and  j-et  sub- 
scribed the  Bergian  formula  which  included  Luther's  words,  —  '  omnia  in  universum  plena 
esse  Christi  etiam  juxta  humanain  naturam,'  —  wliich  repeatedly  says,  Whoso  believeth  not 
that  where  the  Logos  is  there  also  is  the  humanity  of  Christ,  divideth  the  person;  and 
which  assumes  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  three  modes  of  existence  of  the  body  of  Christ, — 
that  also  according  to  which  '  Christi  corpus  repletive,  absolute  ut  Deus,  in  omnibus  crea- 
turis sit.'  " 


§  7.]  LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE.  411 

the  formative  idea  in  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  person  of 
Christ. 

"No  less  diversity  appears  in  the  answer  to  the  question,  What  is 
meant  by  the  communication  of  natures  ?  Sometimes  it  is  said  to 
be  a  communication  of  the  essence  of  God  to  the  human  nature  of 
Christ;  sometimes  a  communication  of  divine  attributes;  and 
sometimes  it  is  said  to  mean  nothing  more  than  that  the  human  is 
made  tlie  organ  of  the  divine.^  The  first  has  symbohcal  authority 
in  its  favour,  and  is  the  most  consistent  with  the  theory.  It  is  the 
proper  meaning  of  tlie  words,  for  as  natura  in  the  "  Form  of 
Concord  "  is  constantly  in  this  connection  explained  by  the  words 
substantia  and  essentia,  a  communication  of  nature  is  a  communi- 
cation of  essence.  The  one  is  not  changed  into  the  other,  but  they 
are  intermingled  and  mixed  without  beinoj  confounded.^ 

The  favorite  illustration  of  this  union  of  two  natures  was  de- 
rived from  heated  iron.  In  that  case  (according  to  the  theory 
of  heat  then  in  vogue)  two  substances  are  united.  The  one  inter- 
penetrates the  other.  Tlie  iron  receives  the  attributes  of  the 
caloric.  It  glows  and  burns.  Where  the  iron  is,  there  the  caloric 
is.  Yet  the  one  is  not  changed  into  the  other.  The  iron  remains 
iron,  and  the  heat  remains  heat.  This  is  very  ingenious  ;  but,  as  is 
often  the  case,  the  analogy  fails  in  the  very  point  to  be  illustrated. 
The  fact  to  be  explained  is  how  man  becomes  God  and  God  man  ; 
how  the  human  becomes  divine,  and  the  finite  becomes  infinite. 
In  the  illustration  the  heat  does  not  become  iron  nor  the  iron  heat. 
The  only  relation  between  the  two  is  juxtaposition  in  space.     But 

1  Dorner  says  of  Chemnitz,  "  In  his  highest  Christological  utterances,  the  Son  of  man  is 
nothing  more  than  a  God -moved  organ:  — a  representation  to  which  even  the  Wittenbergers 
objected."     Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  203,  nole. 

2  The  Form  of  Concord  (viii.  17-19 ;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolici,  p.  765)  says,  "  Catholica  Christi 
ecclesia  semper,  omnibusque  temponbus  simplicissime  credidit  et  sensit,  humanam  et  divinam 
naturam  in  persona  Christi  eo  modo  unitas  esse,  ut  veram  inter  se  communicationem  habeant. 
Neque  tamen  ideo  naturje  in  unam  essentiam,  sed  ut  D.  Lutherus  loquitur,  in  unam  per- 
sonam conveniunt  et  commiscentur.  Et  propter  banc  hypostaticam  unionem  et  communi- 
cationem veteres  orthodoxi  ecclestse  doutores  ssepe  admodum,  non  modo  ante,  verum  etiam 
post,  Chalcedonense  concilium,  vocabulo  (mixtionis),  in  pia  tamen  sententia  et  vero  discrim- 

ine,  usi  sunt Et  quidem  erudita  antiquitas  unionem  hypostaticam  et  naturarum 

communicationem  similitudine  animie  et  corporis,  item  ferri  candentis,  aliquo  modo  decla- 
ravit.  Anima  enim  et  corpus  {quemadmodum  etiam  ignis  et  ferrum)  non  tantum  per 
phrasin  aut  modum  loquendi,  aut  verbaliter,  sed  vere  et  realiter  communicationem  inter  se 
habent:  neque  tamen  hoc  modo  confusio  aut  naturarum  exaaquatio  introducitur,  qualis 
fieri  solet,  cum  ex  melle  et  aqua  mulsum  conficitur;  talis  enim  potus  non  amplius  aut  aqua 
est  mera,  aut  mel  merum  sed  niixtus  quidam  ex  utroque  potus.  Longe  certe  aliter  se  res 
in  ilia  divinie  et  huraanae  uaturaj  unione  (in  persona  Christi)  habent:  longe  enim  sublimior 
est,  et  plane  ineffabilis  communicatio  et  unio  divinae  et  humanse  naturae,  in  persona  Christi, 
propter  quam  unionem  et  communicationem  Deus  homo  est,  et  homo  Deus.  Nee  tameu 
hac  unione  et  communicatione  naturarum  vel  ipsas  naturae,  vel  haruni  proprietates  coufun- 
duntur:  sed  utraque  natura  essentiam  et  proprietates  suas  retinet." 


412         PART  III.     Ch.   in.  — the  person   of   CHRIST. 

in  the  doctrine  the  human  does  become  divine ;  man  does  become 
God. 

A  second  and  minor  point  of  difference  was  that  some  referred 
the  communion  of  the  attributes  of  the  two  natures  to  the  hypo- 
statical  union,  while  others  held  that  that  union  was  the  result  of 
the  communication  of  the  divine  nature  to  the  human. 

The  main  difficulty,  however,  and  the  principal  source  of  diver- 
sity related  to  the  time  and  manner  of  the  union  of  the  two  natures. 
We  have  already  seen  that  one  party  held  that  this  union  took 
place  at  the  moment  of  the  "  miraculous  conception."  The  con- 
ception was  the  ascension.  As  the  union  of  the  divine  with  the 
human  nature  rendered  the  human  divine,  it  became  instanter 
omnipresent,  almighty,  and  infinitely  exalted.  The  effect  of  the 
incarnation  was  that  the  Aoyos  no  longer  existed  extra  carnem, 
neither  was  the  earo  extra  \6yov.  Whatever  the  one  is  the  other 
is  ;  whatever  the  one  knows  the  other  knows  ;  whatever  the  one 
does  the  other  does  ;  and  whatever  majesty,  glory,  or  blessedness 
the  one  has  the  other  also  has.  "  So  certainly  as  the  act  of  incar- 
nation communicates  the  divine  essence  to  humanity,  even  so  cer- 
tainly must  this  actual  omnipresence,  and  not  merely  its  potence, 
which  does  not  exist,  be  communicated  to  the  flesh  of  Christ."  ^ 
The  "  Form  of  Concord  "  teaches  the  same  doctrine  ;  ^  it  says, 
"  Ex  eodem  etiam  fundamento  credimus,  docemus  et  confitemur, 
Filium  hominis  ad  dexteram  omnlpotentis  majestatis  et  virtutis 
Dei,  realiter,  hoc  est,  vere  et  reipsa,  secundum  humanam  suam 
naturam,  esse  exaltatum,  cum  homo  ille  In  Deum  assumptus  fuerit, 
quamprlmum  In  utero  matris  a  Splritu  Sancto  est  confectus,  ejus- 
que  humanltas  jam  tum  cum  Filio  Dei  altlssimi  personallter  fuerit 
unita."  This,  however,  supposes  the  whole  earthly  life  of  Christ 
to  be  an  illusion.  There  could  be  no  growth  or  development  of 
his  human  nature.  He  was  omniscient  and  omnipotent  when  an 
unborn  infant.  The  Bible  says  He  Increased  In  knowledge ;  this 
theory  says  that  He  knew  all  things  from  the  beginning  ;  that  He 
was  the  ruler  of  the  universe  cooperating  in  all  the  activity  of  the 
Logos  when  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  ;  that  He  was  supremely 
blessed  as  to  his  human  nature  when  in  the  garden  and  upon  the 
cross ;  and  that  as  to  soul  and  body  He  was  living  while  lying  in 
the  grave.  If  this  be  so  He  never  suffered  or  died,  and  there  has 
been  no  redemption  through  his  blood. 

1  Dorner,  div.  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  284.  Dorner  makes  the  remark  quoted  in  the  text,  in  special 
reference  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Tiibingen  divines.  It  applies,  however,  to  every  form  of  the 
Lutheran  theorj". 

2  VIII.  X.;  Hase,  Lihri  SijmboUci,  p.  608. 


§  7.]  LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE.  413 

To  avoid  these  fatal  consequences  of  their  theory,  the  Lutherans 
were  driven  to  different  and  conflicting  subtle  explanations.  Ac- 
cording to  some  there  was  no  actual  communication  of  the  divine 
essence  and  attributes  to  the  human  nature  until  after  his  resurrec- 
tion. The  Logos  was  in  Him  only  potentially.  There  was  on  the 
part  of  the  divine  nature  a  retractio,  or  -fjavxa-C^i-i',  or  quiescence,  so 
that  it  was  as  though  it  were  not  there.  According  to  others, 
there  was  a  voluntary  Kpyxpis  or  veiHng  of  itself  or  of  its  divine 
gloiy  on  the  part  of  the  humanity  of  Christ.  According  to  others, 
this  humiliation  was  rather  the  act  of  the  Godman,  who  only  occa- 
sionally revealed  the  fact  that  the  human  nature  was  divine.  No 
explanation  could  meet  the  difficulties  of  the  case,  because  they  are 
inseparable  from  the  assumption  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
was  replete  with  divine  attributes  from  the  moment  of  its  miracu- 
lous conception.  It  is  a  contradiction  to  say  that  the  same  indi- 
vidual mind  was  omniscient  and  yet  was  ignorant  and  increased 
in  knowledge  ;  tliat  the  same  rational  soul  was  supremely  happy 
and  exceeding  sorrowful,  at  the  same  time  ;  that  the  same  body 
was  potentially  alive  and  yet  actually  dead.  From  the  nature  of 
the  case  there  can  be  no  difference  between  the  Kr^cns  and  XPW'-^  of 
such  divine  attributes  as  omniscience  and  omnipresence.  It  would 
require  a  volume  to  give  the  details  of  the  controversies  between 
the  different  schools  of  the  Lutheran  divines  on  these  and  kindred 
points.     This  general  outline  is  all  that  can  here  be  expected.^ 

Remarks  on  the  Lutheran  Doctrine. 

1.  The  first  remark  which  suggests  itself  on  this  Lutheran  doc- 
trine is  its  contrast  with  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel.  The  New 
Testament  predicates  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  all  that  can  be 
predicated  of  a  sinless  man,  and  all  that  can  be  predicated  of  a 
divine  person.  It  is  only  stating  this  fact  in  another  form  to  sav 
that  the  Bible  teaches  that  the  eternal  Son  of  God  became  man  by 
taking  to  Himself  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul,  and  so  was, 

1  These  details  may  be  found  at  length  in  the  larger  work  of  Dorner  on  the  Person  of 

Christ,  already  frequently  referred  to,  and  in  the  work  entitled  Christi  Person  unci  Werk  ; 
Darstellung  der  evangeUsch-lutheri$chen  Dogmnlik  vom  Mittelpunkte  der  Chrhtoloyie  aus. 
Von  G.  Thomasius  D.  und  ord.  Professor  der  Theologie  an  der  Universitat  Erlangen.  In 
two  volumes,  1853,  and  1857. 

See  also  The  Consei-vative  Reforviation  and  its  Theology,  as  represented  in  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  and  in  the  History  and  Literature  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church.  By 
Charles  P.  Krauth,  D.  D.,  Norton  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Kvangelical  Lutheran  The- 
ological Seminary,  and  Professor  of  Intellectual  and  Moral  Philosophy  in  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania.  Philadelphia,  J.  B.  Lippincott  &  Co.,  1871,  8vo,  pp.  840.  This  is  a  very 
able  and  instructive  book,  and  presents  the  Lutheran  doctrine  in  the  most  plausible  form 
of  which  it  admits. 


414         PART  III.    Ch.  m.  — the  person  of   CHRIST. 

and  continues  to  be,  God  and  man,  in  two  entire  distinct  natures, 
and  one  person  forever.  Whatever  is  beyond  this,  is  mere  specu- 
lation. Not  content  with  athuitting  the  fact  that  two  natures  are 
united  in  tlie  one  person  of  Christ,  the  Lutheran  tl^eologians  insist 
on  explaining  that  fact.  They  are  willing  to  acknowledge  that 
two  natures  or  substances,  soul  and  body,  are  united  in  the  one 
person  in  man,  without  pretending  to  explain  the  essential  nature 
of  the  union.  Why  then  can  they  not  receive  the  fact  that  two 
natures  are  united  in  Christ  without  philosophizing  about  it  ?  The 
first  objection,  therefore,  is  that  the  Lutheran  doctrine  is  an  at- 
tempt to  explain  the  inscrutable. 

2.  A  second  objection  is  that  the  character  of  the  explanation 
was  determined  by  the  peculiar  views  of  Luther  as  to  the  Lord's 
Supper.  He  believed  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  really 
and  locally  present  in  the  Eucharist.  And  when  asked,  How  can 
the  body  of  Chinst  which  is  in  heaven  be  in  many  different  places 
at  the  same  time  ?  He  answered  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  every- 
where. And  when  asked.  How  can  that  be  ?  His  only  answer 
was.  That  in  virtue  of  the  incarnation  the  attributes  of  the  divine 
nature  were  communicated  to  the  human,  so  that  wherever  the 
Logos  is  there  the  soul  and  body  of  Christ  must  be. 

There  are  two  tilings  specially  prominent  in  Luther  as  a  theo- 
logian. The  one  is  his  entire  subjection  to  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture, as  he  understood  it.  He  seemed,  moreover,  never  to  doubt 
the  correctness  of  his  interpretations,  nor  was  he  willing  to  tolerate 
doubt  in  others.  As  to  matters  not  clearly  determined  in  the 
Bible,  according  to  his  view,  he  was  exceedingly  tolerant  and  lib- 
eral. But  with  regard  to  points  which  he  believed  to  be  taught  in 
the  Word  of  God,  he  allowed  neither  hesitation  nor  dissent.  The 
other  marked  trait  in  his  character  was  his  power  of  faith.  He 
could  believe  not  only  what  was  repugnant  to  his  feelings,  but  what 
was  directly  opposed  to  his  system,  and  even  what  was  in  its  own 
natiu-e  impossible.  His  cardinal  doctrine  was  "justification  by 
faith  alone,"  as  he  translated  Romans  iii.  28.  He  constantly  taught 
not  only  that  no  man  could  be  saved  without  faith  in  Christ,  but 
that  faith  alone  was  necessary.  Yet  as  he  understood  our  Lord  in 
John  iii.  5,  to  teach  that  baptism  is  essential  to  salvation,  he  as- 
serted its  absolute  necessity,  although  sorely  against  his  will.  To 
reconcile  this  with  his  doctrine  of  the  necessity  and  sufficiency  of 
faith,  he  held  that  new-born  infants,  when  baptized,  exercised  faith, 
although  he  meant  by  faith  the  intelligent,  voluntary,  and  cordial 
reception  of  Christ  as  He  is  offered  in  the  gospel.    In  like  manner, 


§  7.]  LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE.  415 

he  hated  the  Romish  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  and  was  bit- 
terly opposed  to  all  the  subtleties  of  scholasticism.  Yet  as  he  un- 
derstood our  Lord's  words,  "  This  is  my  body,"  literally,  he  adopted 
all  the  subtleties,  inconsistencies,  and,  we  may  say,  impossibilities, 
involved  in  the  doctrine  of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body.  Body 
includes  the  idea  of  form  as  well  as  of  substance.  A  man's  body 
is  not  the  water,  ammonia,  and  lime  of  which  it  is  composed.  It  is 
certainly  a  strong  objection  to  any  doctrine  that  it  owes  its  existence 
mainly  to  the  desire  to  support  a  false  interpretation  of  Scripture. 

Lvatherans,  indeed,  deny  that  their  doctrine  concerning  the  per- 
son of  Christ  is  thus  subordinate  to  their  views  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. Even  Dorner,  in  one  place,  seems  to  take  the  same  ground. 
Elsewhere,  however,  he  fully  admits  the  fact.  Thus  when  speak- 
ing of  Luther,  he  says  that  he  "  did  not  develop  his  deep  and  full 
Christological  intuitions  in  a  connected  doctrinal  form.  His  con- 
troversy with  the  Swiss,  on  the  contrary,  had  led  him,  as  we  have 
shown,  to  the  adoption  of  single  divergent  principles,  which  aided 
in  reducing  Christology  to  the  rank  of  a  follower  in  the  train  of 
another  doctrine,  instead  of  conceding  to  it  an  independent  life  and 
sphere  of  its  own."  ^  And  on  the  next  page  he  says,  "  Even  the 
champions  of  peace  between  the  evangelical  parties  put  their 
Christology  in  a  position  of  dependence  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
Eucharist,  which  almost  involved  the  entire  loss  of  the  grand  fea- 
tures of  Luther's  doctrine." 

3.  It  is  to  be  objected  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  not  only  that  it 
undertakes  to  explain  what  is  an  inscrutable  mystery,  and  that  the 
explanation  derives  its  character  fi-om  Luther's  views  of  the 
Eucharist,  but  also  that  the  explanation  itself  is  utterly  unsatis- 
factory. In  the  first  place,  it  is  one  sided.  It  insists  on  a  com- 
munication of  natures  and  a  communion  of  attributes.  Lutherans 
maintain  that  God  became  man  as  truly,  and  in  the  same  sense  that 
man  became  God.  Yet  they  deny  that  the  divine  nature  received 
anything  from  the  human,  or  that  God  was  in  any  way  subject  to 
the  limitations  of  humanity.  Nevertheless,  such  limitation  appears 
to  be  involved  in  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  Christ's  humiliation. 
The  idea  is  that  after  the  incarnation  the  Logos  is  not  extra  car- 
nem,  that  all  his  activity  is  with  and  through  the  activity  of  his 
humanity ;  and  yet  it  is  affirmed  that  the  humanity  did  not  exer- 
cise, while  on  earth,  except  occasionally,  its  divine  perfections. 
This  seems  of  necessity  to  involve  the  admission  that  the  Logos 
did  not  exercise  those  jierfections  during  the  period  of  the  humilia- 

1  Dorner's  History  of  the  Doctrine  on  the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  172. 


416         PART  III.     Ch.  in.  — the   person   of   CHRIST. 

tion.  That  is,  while  Christ  was  on  earth,  the  know-ledge  and 
power  of  the  Logos  were  measured  and  circum.scribed  by  the 
knowledge  and  power  of  the  human  soul  of  Christ.  This  is  the 
modern  doctrine  of  KtVwo-ts  which  Luther  rejected.  He  refused, 
says  Dorner,  "  to  purchase  an  actual  growth  of  the  divine-human 
vital  unity  at  the  price  of  a  depotentiation  or  self-emptying  of  the 
Logos."  ^ 

In  the  second  place,  the  doctrine  in  question  is  destitute  of  any 
Scriptural  support.  Almost  all  the  arguments  derived  from  the 
Scriptures,  urged  by  Lutherans,  are  founded  on  passages  in  which 
the  person  of  Christ  is  denominated  from  his  human  nature 
when  divine  attributes  or  prerogatives  are  ascribed  to  Him ; 
whence  it  is  inferred  that  those  attributes  and  prerogatives  belong 
to  his  humanity.  Thus  because  it  is  said,  "  The  Son  of  Man  is  in 
heaven,"  it  is  inferred  that  the  human  nature,  i.  e.,  the  soul  and 
body  of  Christ,  were  in  heaven  while  He  was  on  earth.  But  they 
do  not  carry  out  the  principle,  and  argue  that  because  Christ  is 
denominated  from  his  divine  nature  when  the  limitations  of  human- 
ity are  ascribed  to  Him,  that  therefore  his  divine  nature  is  limited. 
But  if  his  being  called  God  when  He  is  said  to  have  purchased  the 
Church  with  his  blood,  does  not  prove  that  the  divine  nature 
suffered  death,  neither  does  his  being  called  the  Son  of  Man  when 
He  is  said  to  be  in  heaven,  prove  the  ubiquity  of  his  humanity. 
Still  less  force  is  due  to  the  argument  from  passages  in  which  the 
Theanthropos  is  the  subject  to  which  divine  perfections  and  pre- 
rogatives are  ascribed.  That  our  Lord  said,  "  All  power  is  given 
unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth,"  no  more  proves  that  his  human 
nature  is  almighty,  than  his  saying,  "Before  Abraham  was  I  am," 
proves  that  his  humanity  is  eternal.  If  saying  that  man  is  a  rational 
creature  does  not  imply  that  his  body  thinks,  saying  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  God,  does  not  imply  that  his  human  nature  is  divine.  If 
the  personal  union  between  the  soul  and  body  in  man,  does  not 
imply  that  the  attributes  of  the  soul  are  communicated  to  the  body, 
then  the  personal  union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  does  not  imply 
that  the  divine  attributes  are  communicated  to  his  humanity. 

In  the  third  place,  the  Lutheran  doctrine  destroys  the  integrity 
of  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  A  body  which  fills  immensity  is 
not  a  human  body.  A  soul  which  is  omniscient,  omnipresent,  and 
almighty,  is  not  a  human  soul.  The  Christ  of  the  Bible  and  of  the 
human  heart  is  lost  if  this  doctrine  be  true. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  Lutheran   doctrine   is  contrary  to  the 

1  Dorner's  History  of  the  Doctrine  on  the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  97. 


§7.]  LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE.  417 

entire  drift  of  the  teaching  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  of  the  whole 
Church.  If  anything  is  plainly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures  concern- 
ing our  Lord,  and  if  there  is  anything  to  which  the  heart  of  the 
behever  instinctively  clings,  it  is  that  although  He  is  God  over  all 
and  blessed  forever.  He  is  nevertheless  a  man  like  ourselves  ;  bone 
of  our  bone,  and  flesh  of  our  flesh  ;  one  who  can  be  touched  with  a 
sense  of  our  infirmities  ;  and  who  knows  from  his  own  experience 
and  present  consciousness,  what  a  weak  and  infirm  thing  human 
nature  is.  He  became  and  continues  a  man  that  He  might  be  a 
merciful  and  faithful  High  Priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God.  But 
a  man  whose  body  and  soul  fill  immensity,  who  "  as  man  "  is  om- 
niscient and  omnipotent,  as  just  said,  ceases  to  be  a  man.  His 
humanity  is  merged  into  divinity,  and  He  becomes  not  God  and 
man,  but  simply  God,  and  we  have  lost  our  Saviour,  the  Jesus  of 
the  Bible,  who  was  a  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with  grief, 
who  was  one  with  us  in  his  humanity,  and  therefore  can  sympathize 
with  us  and  save  us. 

Finally,  it  is  a  fatal  objection  to  the  doctrine  under  consideraticm 
that  it  involves  the  physical  impossibility  that  attributes  are  separa- 
ble from  the  substances  of  which  they  are  the  manifestation.  This 
is  the  same  kind  of  impossibility  as  action  without  something  act- 
ing :  or,  motion  without  something  moving.  It  is  an  objection 
urged  by  Lutherans  as  well  as  others  against  the  Romish  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation  that  it  supposes  the  accidents,  or  attributes 
of  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Eucharist,  to  continue  when  their  sub- 
stance no  longer  exists.  In  like  manner,  according  to  the  Lutheran 
doctrine,  the  attributes  of  the  divine  nature  or  essence  are  trans- 
ferred to  another  essence.  If  there  be  no  such  transfer  or  commu- 
nication, then  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  no  more  omniscient  or 
almighty,  than  the  worker  of  a  miracle  is  omnipotent.  If  the  divine 
nature  only  exercises  its  omnipotence  in  connection  with  the  activ- 
ity of  the  humanity,  then  the  humanity  is  the  mere  organ  or  instru- 
ment of  the  divine  nature.  This  idea,  however,  the  Lutherans 
repudiate.  They  admit  that  for  God  to  exercise  his  power,  when 
Peter  said  to  the  lame  man,  "  Rise  up  and  walk,"  was  something 
entirely  different  from  rendering  Peter  omnipotent.  Besides,  om- 
nipresence and  omniscience  are  not  attributes  of  which  a  creature 
can  be  made  the  organ.  Knowledge  is  something  subjective.  If  a 
mind  knows  everything,  then  that  mind,  and  not  another  in  con- 
nection with  it,  is  omniscient.  If  Christ's  body  is  everywhere 
present,  then  it  is  the  substance  of  that  body,  and  not  the  essence 
of  God  that  is  omnipresent.     The  Lutheran  doctrine  is,  however, 

VOL.  II.  27 


418         PART  III.    Ch.  Ill  — the   person   OF   CHRIST. 

that  the  essential  attributes  or  properties  of  the  two  natures  remain 
unchanged  after  the  hypostatical  union.  The  properties  of  the 
divine  essence  do  not  become  the  properties  of  the  human.  Then 
the  humanity  of  Christ  has  the  attributes  of  his  divinity  without  its 
essence,  and  yet  those  attributes  or  properties  do  not  inliere  in  his 
human  substance.^ 

It  seems  a  plain  contradiction  in  terms,  to  say  that  the  human 
becomes  divine,  that  the  finite  becomes  infinite ;  and  no  less  a 
contradiction  to  say  that  the  humanity  of  Christ  has  infinite  attri- 
butes and  yet  itself  is  not  infinite. 

The  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ  has  never  been 
disconnected  from  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Both  are  peculiar  to  that  Church  and  form  no  part  of  Catholic 
Christianity. 

§  8.  Later  Forms  of  the  Doctrine. 

During  the  period  between  the  Reformation  and  the  present 
time,  the  doctrine  concerning  the  Person  of  Christ  was  constantly 
under  discussion.  The  views  advanced  however  were,  for  the 
most  part,  referrible  to  the  one  or  other  of  the  forms  of  the  doc- 
trine already  considered.  The  only  theories  calling  for  special 
notice  are  Socinianism  and  that  of  the  Preexistent  Humanity  of 
Christ. 

Socinianism. 

Socinus  was  an  Italian,  born  of  a  noble  family  at  Siena,  in  1539. 
The  earlier  part  of  his  life  was  not  devoted  to  learning.  Being  a 
favourite  of  the  Grand  Duke,  he  passed  twelve  years  at  his  court, 
and  then  removed  to  Basel  that  he  might  prosecute  his  theologi- 
cal studies,  in  which  he  had  become  deeply  interested.  After  a 
few  years  he  removed  to  Poland  and  settled  at  Cracow.  There 
and  in  its  vicinity  he  passed  the  greater  part  of  his  active  life.  He 
died  in  1604. 

The  early  Socinians  erected  a  college  at  Racovia,  in  Lesser  Po- 
land, which  attained  so  high  a  reputation  that  it  attracted  students 
from  among  Protestants  and  Romanists.  It  was  however  sup- 
pressed by  the  government  in  1658,  and  the  followers  of  Socinus, 
after  having  suffered  a  protracted  persecution,  were  expelled  from 
the  kingdom. 

1  The  Form  of  Concord,  chap.  viii.  sections  6  and  7,  Epitome;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolici,  p.  606, 
says,  "  Credimus,  docemus  et  confitemur,  divinam  et  humanam  naturas  non  in  imam  sub- 
stantiam  commixtas,  nee  unam  in  alteram  mutatam  esse,  sed  utramque  naturam  retinere 
siias  proprietates  essentiales,  ut  quis  alterius  naturae  proprietates  fieri  iieqiieant. 

"  Proprietates  divinae  naturoe  sunt:  esse  omiiipotentem,  ajternam,  infinitam,  et  secundum 
nature  naturalisque  sure  essentise  proprietatem,  per  se,  ubique  presentem  esse,  omnia 
novisse,  etc.     Usee  omnia  neque  sunt  ueque  unquam  tiunt  humanse  natur®  proprietates." 


§8.]         LATER  FORMS  OF  THE  DOCTRINE.        419 

Socinus  and  his  followers  admitted  the  divine  authority  of  the 
Scriptures.  The  sacred  writers,  they  said,  wrote,  divino  Spiritu  im- 
puhi  eoque  dictante.  They  admitted  that  the  Bible  contained  doc- 
trines above,  but  not  contrary  to  reason.  Of  this  contrariety  reason 
was  to  judge.  On  this  ground  they  rejected  many  doctrines  held 
by  the  Church  universal,  especially  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity 
and  of  the  Atonement.  Socinus  said  that  as  there  is  but  one 
divine  essence  there  can  be  but  one  divine  person.  He  denied  that 
there  is  any  such  thing  as  natural  religion  or  natural  theology. 
Supernatural  revelation  he  regarded  as  the  only  source  of  our 
knowledge  of  God  and  of  divine  things.  The  only  religion  was  the 
Christian,  which  he  defined  to  be  "  Via  divinitus  proposita  et  pate- 
facta  perveniendi  ad  immortalitatem,  seu  aeternam  vitam."^  This 
is  the  answer  to  the  first  question  of  the  "  Brevissima  Institutio," 
of  which  Socinus  was  the  author. 

All  men  having  sinned  they  became  subject  to  the  penalty  of 
eternal  death,  which  Socinus  understood  to  be  annihilation.  To 
deliver  men  from  this  penalty  God  sent  Christ  into  the  world,  and 
it  is  only  through  Him  that  immortality  can  be  secured.  Concern- 
ing Christ,  he  taught  that  He  was  in  Himself  and  by  nature  a 
mere  man,  having  had  no  existence  prior  to  his  being  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary.  He  was,  however,  distinguished  from  all  other 
men, — 

1.  By  his  miraculous  conception.^ 

2.  Although  peccable  and  liable  to  be  tempted,  He  was  entirel}^ 
free  from  sin. 

3.  He  received  a  special  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  is,  of 
the  divine  efficiency. 

4.  Some  time  before  entering  upon  his  public  ministry  He  was 
taken  up  into  heaven  that  He  might  see  God  and  be  instructed 
immediately  by  Him.  There  are  two  passages  which  speak  of 
Christ's  having  been  in  heaven  (John  iii.  13,  and  John  vi.  62). 
"  In  priore  loco,"  says  Socinus,  "  ex  Graeco  ita  verba  Christi  legi 
possunt,  ut  dicat,  filium  hominis  non  quidem  esse  in  coelo,  sed  fuisse. 

1  Chrhdnnce  Religionis  brevissima  Tvstitutio  per  Fnlerrognliones  et  Responslnnes,  qunm 
Cathechismum  vulyo  vocnnt.  Scripta  a  Fausto  Socino  Senensi.  IrenopoU,  Post  annum  1656. 
It  makes  a  part  of  tlie  first  volume  of  the  works  of  Faustus  Socinus,  as  published  in  the 
Bihliotheca  Frntvum  Polomn-um,  pp.  651-676. 

2  On  this  point  Socinus,  in  the  Brevisdma  Insdiutio,  s&ys,  "  De  Christi  essentia  ita  statuo 
ilium  esse  hominem  Kom.  v.  15,  in  Virginia  utero  et  sic  sine  viri  ope,  divini  Spiiitu*  vi  con- 
ceptum  ac  forniatum,  Matt.  i.  20-23  ;  Luc.  i.  .35,  indeque  genituni,  prinuim  quidem  pati- 
bilem  ac  mortalem  2  Cor.  xiii.  4,  donee  scilicet  munus  sibi  a  Deo  demandatum  hie  in  terris 
obivit;  deinde  vero  postquam  in  coelum  a.*cendit,  impatibilem  et  immortalem  factum. 
Rom.  vi.  9."     Btbliolheca  Fratrum  Pohmmim,  Fausti  Socini  Opera,  vol.  i.  p.  654, 


420       PART  m.   Ch.  m.  — the  person  of  christ. 

Vox  enim  Grffica  wv  quee  per  praesens  tempus  reddita  fuit,  potest, 
ut  doctissimi  aliqui  interpretes  annotarunt  (Erasmus  et  Beza), 
reddi  per  praeteritum  imperfectum  ;  ut  legatur  non  qui  est,  sed,  qui 
erat  in  coelo.^^^  As  no  pi'cexistence  of  Christ  was  admitted,  these 
passages  were  regarded  as  direct  assertions  of  his  being  taken  up 
into  heaven  during  his  earthly  life. 

5.  The  great  distinction  of  Cin'ist  is  that  since  his  resurrection 
and  ascension  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  has  been  committed 
to  Him.  He  is  exalted  above  all  creatures,  and  constituted  God'a 
viceroy  over  the  whole  universe.  The  question  is  asked,  "  Quid 
tamen  istud  ejus  divinum  imperium  nominatim  complectitur  ? " 
To  which  the  answer  is,  "  Propter  id  quod  jam  dictum  est,  nempe 
quod  hoc  potestatem  complectitur  plenissimam  et  absolutissimam 
in  verum  Dei  populura,  hinc  necessario  sequitur,  eodem  divinci 
imperio  contineri  potestatem  et  dominationem  in  omnes  angeloa 
et  spiritus  tarn  malos,  quam  bonos."'-^  And  again  :  "Nonne  ex  eadem 
tua  ratiocinatione  sequitur,  Jesum  Christum  in  omnes  homines  ple- 
num dominatum  habere?  Sine  dubio;  nee  solum  in  omnes  homines 
sed  praeter  ipsum  unum  Deum  1  Cor.  xv.  27,  prorsus  in  alia  omnia, 
quemadmodum  divina  testimonia  nos  diserte  docent."  ^ 

6.  On  account  of  this  exaltation  and  authority  Christ  is  properly 
called  God,  and  is  to  be  worshipped.  Socinus  would  recognize 
no  man  as  a  Christian  who  was  not  a  worshipper  of  Christ.  The 
answer  to  Question  246  in  the  Racovian  Catechism,  declares  those 
"qui  Christum  non  invocant  nee  adorandum  censent,"  to  be  no 
Christians,  because  in  fact  they  have  no  Christ.* 

7.  Socinus  acknowledges  that  men  owe  their  salvation  to  Christ. 
He  saves  them  not  only  in  his  character  of  prophet  by  teaching  them 
the  truth  ;  not  only  in  his  character  of  priest  by  interceding  for 
them  ;  but  especially  in  virtue  of  his  kingly  office.  He  exercises 
the  divine  and  absolute  power  and  authority  granted  to  Him  for 
their  protection  and  assistance.  He  operates  not  only  over  them 
and  for  them,  but  also  within  them,  so  that  it  is  through  Him  that 
immortality  or  eternal  life  is  secured. 

From  all  this  it  appears  that  Socinus  and  his  early  followers  held 

1  Bibliotkeca  Fralrum  Polonoruin,  Faush  Socini  Opera,  vol.  i.  p.  674. 

-  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  656.  3  Ibid. 

*  In  answer  to  the  question,  "  Numquid  liumanae  naturse  in  Christo  exaltationem  recte 
percipere  non  prorsus  necessarian!  esse  statuis  i"'  the  Brevissima  Instilutio  answers  {Ibid. 
p.  655),  "  Eatenus  recfani  cognitionem  istam  prorsus  necessariani  esse  statuo,  quatenus  quis 
sine  ilia  non  esset  Christo  Jesu  divinum  cultum  exhibiturus,  ob  earn  causani,  quam  antea 
dixi;  nimirum,  quod  Deus  ut  id  a  nobis  fiat,  omnino  re(iuirit."  Socinus  also  says  that  they 
are  not  Christians  who  deny  that  Christ  understands  our  thoughts  when  we  pray.  Ibid. 
656. 


§8.]        LATER  FORMS  OF  THE  DOCTRINE.        421 

much  more  exalted  views  of  Christ  than  those  who  in  Great  Britain 
and  America  are  called  Socinians,  by  whom  our  Lord  is  regarded 
as  an  ordinary  man.  The  term  Unitarian,  especially  in  this  coun- 
try, is  used  in  a  sense  which  includes  all  who  deny  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  and  retain  the  name  of  Christians.  It  therefore  includes 
Arians,  Semi-Arians,  genuine  Socinians,  and  Humanitarians. 

Preexistence  of  Christ's  Humanity. 

Swedenhorg. 

This  theory  has  been  held  in  different  forms.  The  doctrine  of 
Swedenborg  is  so  mystical  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  be  clearly 
understood,  and  it  has  been  modified  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  by 
his  recognized  disciples.  Swedenborg  was  the  son  of  a  Swedish 
bishop.  He  was  born  in  January,  1688,  and  died  in  March,  1772. 
He  enjoyed  every  advantage  of  early  education.  He  manifested 
extraordinary  precocity,  and  made  such  attainments  in  every 
branch  of  learning  as  to  gain  the  highest  rank  among  the  literati  of 
that  day.  He  wrote  numerous  v^^orks  in  all  the  departments  of 
science  before  he  turned  his  attention  to  matters  of  religion. 
Believing  that  the  existing  Church  in  all  its  forms  had  failed  to 
arrive  at  the  true  sense  of  Scripture,  he  regarded  himself  as  called 
by  God,  in  an  extraordinary  or  miraculous  manner,  to  reveal  the 
hidden  meaning  of  the  Word  of  God  and  found  a  new  Church. 

1.  Concerning  God,  he  taught  that  He  was  not  only  essence  but 
form,  and  that  that  form  was  human.  He  called  God  "  the  eternal 
God-man."  There  are  two  kinds  of  bodies,  material  and  spiritual. 
Every  man,  besides  his  external  material  body  has  another  which 
is  internal  and  spiritual.  The  latter  has  all  the  organs  of  the  for- 
mer, so  that  it  can  see,  hear,  and  feel.  At  death  the  outer  body  is 
laid  aside,  and  the  soul  thereafter  acts  through  the  ethereal  or  spir- 
itual vestment.  This  is  the  only  resurrection  which  Swedenborg 
admitted.  There  is  no  rising  again  of  the  bodies  laid  in  the  grave. 
As  however  the  spiritual  corresponds  to  the  material,  those  who 
know  each  other  in  this  world  will  enjoy  mutual  recognition  in  the 
world  to  come.  This  feature  of  his  anthropology  is  connected  with 
his  doctrine  concerning  God.  For  as  the  soul  from  its  nature  forms 
for  itself  a  body  for  action  ad  extra,  so  the  essence  of  God  forms 
for  itself  a  spiritual  body  for  external  manifestation. 

As  there  is  but  one  divine  essence,  Swedenborg  maintained  that 
there  can  be  but  one  divine  person.  The  Church  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  he   regarded  as  Tritheistic.     He   admitted   a   Trinity  of 


422         PART  III.     Cii.   III.  — THE   PERSON   OF   CHRIST. 

princi{)les,  but  not  of  persons.  As  soul  and  body  in  man  are  one 
person,  and  from  them  proceeds  the  activity  which  operates  without, 
so  in  God  the  divine  and  human  are  the  Father  and  the  Son,  as 
one  person,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  their  efficiency  or  sanctifying 
influence. 

2.  Concerning  man,  Swedenborg  taught  that  he  was  created  in 
the  image  of  God,  and  was  a  creature  of  a  very  exalted  nature. 
The  Scriptural  account  of  the  fall  he  understood  allegorically  of  the 
apostasy  of  the  Church.  Men,  however,  he  admits,  are  sinful,  and 
are  even  born  with  a  bias  to  evil,  but  they  have  not  lost  their 
ability  to  do  good.  They  consequently  need  redemption.  They 
are  susceptible  of  being  delivered  from  evil  not  only  because  they 
retain  their  moral  liberty,  but  also  because  in  virtue  of  the  inward 
spiritual  body  tliey  are  capable  of  intercourse  with  spiritual  beings. 
As  man  by  means  of  his  material  body  is  conversant  with  the  world 
of  sense,  so  in  virtue  of  his  spiritual  body  he  is  caj)able  of  intercourse 
with  the  inhabitants  of  the  spiritual  world.  Swedenborg  reports 
man}'  instances  in  which  he  conversed  with  God  and  angels,  good 
and  bad.  By  angels,  however,  he  meant  men  who  had  departed 
this  life.  He  did  not  admit  the  existence  of  any  created  intelligence 
other  than  man. 

3.  Christ  he  held  to  be  Jehovah,  the  only  living  and  true  God, 
the  creator,  preserver,  and  ruler  of  the  world.  As  this  divine 
person  was  God  and  man  from  eternity,  his  incarnation,  or  mani- 
festation in  the  flesh,  consisted  in  his  assuming  a  material  body  with 
its  psychical  life  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  This  was  the 
Kody  which  grew,  suffered,  and  died.  In  the  case  of  ordinary  men 
the  material  bod}-  is  left  forever  in  the  grave,  but  in  tiie  case  of 
Christ  the  outward  body  was  gradually  refined  and  glorified  until 
it  was  lost  in  that  which  is  spiritual  and  eternal.  This  idea  of  a 
twofold  body  in  Christ  is  not  by  any  means  peculiar  to  Sweden- 
borg. Barclay,  the  representative  theologian  of  the  Quakers, 
says  :  "  As  there  was  the  outward  visible  body  and  temple  of  Jesus 
Christ,  which  took  its  origin  from  the  Virgin  Mary:  there  is  also 
the  spiritual  body  of  Christ,  by  and  thi^ough  which  He  that  was  the 
Word  in  the  beginning  with  God,  and  was  and  is  God,  did  reveal 
Himself  to  the  sons  of  men  in  all  ages,  and  whereby  men  in  all 
ages  come  to  be  made  partakers  of  eternal  life,  and  to  have  com- 
munion and  fellowship  with  God  and  Christ."  ^  And  again,  P. 
Poiret,  of  Amsterdam,   teaches  that   "  La  Majesty  divine  voulut 

1  An  Apology  far  the  True  Christian  Divinity,  Prop.  xiii.  2  ;   edit.  Philadelphia,  1805 
D.  463. 


§8.]  LATER  FORMS   OF   THE  DOCTRINE.  423 

couvrir  son  corps  glorleux  de  notre  chair  mortelle,  qu'il  voulut 
prendre  dans  le  sein  d'une  Vierge."  "  Le  corps  de  Jdsus  Christ, 
se  revetant  de  la  chair  et  du  sans;  de  la  bien  heureuse  Vierge, 
fera  aussi  peu  un  compose  de  deux  corps  diffei'ents,  qu'un  habit 
blanc  et  lumineux  plonge  dans  un  vase  de  couleur  chargde  et  ob- 
scure, ou  il  se  cliarge  de  la  matiere,  qui  produit  cette  opacite,  ne 
devient  pour  cela  un  habit  double  ou  deux  habits,  au  lieu  d'un."  ^ 

4.  Christ's  redemptive  work  does  not  consist  in  his  bearing  our 
sins  upon  the  tree,  or  in  making  satisfaction  to  the  justice  of  God 
for  our  offences.  All  idea  of  such  satisfaction  Swedenborg  rejects. 
The  work  of  salvation  is  entirely  subjective.  Justification  is  par- 
don granted  on  repentance.  The  people  of  God  are  made  in- 
wardly righteous,  and  being  thus  holy  are  admitted  to  the  presence 
of  God  and  holy  spirits  in  heaven.  His  peculiar  views  of  the  state 
of  the  departed,  or  of  Heaven  and  Hell,  do  not  call  for  considera- 
tion in  this  place.^ 

Isaac  Watts. 

No  one  familiar  with  Dr.  Watts'  "  Psalms  and  Hymns,"  can 
doubt  his  being  a  devout  worshipper  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  or 
call  in  question  his  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Yet  on 
account  of  his  peculiar  views  on  the  person  of  Christ,  there  is  a 
vague  impression  that  he  had  in  some  way  departed  from  the  faith 
of  the  Church.  It  is,  indeed,  often  said  that  he  was  Arian.  In 
his  works,^  however,  there  is  a  dissertation  on  "  The  Christian 
Doctrine  of  the  Trinity:  or.  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  three  persons 
and  one  God,  asserted  and  proved,  with  their  divine  Rights  and 
Honors  vindicated,  by  plain  evidence  of  Scripture,  without  the  aid 
or  incumbrance  of  human  Schemes.  Written  chiefly  for  the  use  of 
private  Christians."  In  that  dissertation  the  common  Church  doc- 
trine is  presented  in  the  usual  form,  and  sustained  by  the  common 
arguments,  with  singular  perspicuity  and  force. 

1  CEconomie  du  Relablissenient  apres  I' Incarnation  de  Jesus  Christ,  chap.  ii.  §§  11,  12. 
Quoted  by  Domer,  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  328. 

2  Swedenborg's  doctrines  are  most  clearly  and  concisely  presented  in  his  book,  Vera 
Christiana  Reliyio,  Amsterdam,  1771.  It  has  been  frequently  translated.  An  English  ver- 
sion was  published  in  Boston  in  1833,  in  one  volume,  8vo,  pp.  576.  As  an  illustration  of 
the  way  in  which  Swedenborg  speaks  of  his  intercourse  with  the  spirit-world,  a  few  sen- 
tences may  be  quoted  from  the  thirtieth  page  of  the  work  just  mentioned.  He  saj's  that 
when  he  was  astonished  at  the  multitude  of  persons  who  merged  God  into  nature,  an  angel 
stood  at  his  side  and  said,  "  '  What  are  you  meditating  about? '  and  I  replied,  '  About  the 
multitude  of  such  persons  as  believe  that  nature  is  of  itself,  and  thus  the  creator  of  the  uni- 
verse.' And  the  angel  said  to  me,  '  All  hell  is  of  such,  and  thej'  are  called  there  satans  and 
ilevils;  satans,  who  have  confirmed  themselves  in  favour  of  nature,  and  thence  have  de 
nied  God;  devils,  who  have  lived  wickedly,  and  thus  have  rejected  from  their  hearts  all 
acknowledgment  of  God.'  " 

8  Watts'  Works,  edit.  London,  1753,  vol.  vi.  pp.  413-492. 


424  PART  in.  Ch.  III.  — the   person   of   CHRIST. 

His  peculiar  views  on  the  person  of  Christ  are  brought  out  in 
three  discourses  on  "  The  Glory  of  Christ  as  God-man,"  ^  pub- 
lished in  1746.  In  the  first  of  these  he  refers  to  the  "  visible  ap- 
pearances of  Christ,  as  God  before  his  incarnation,"  and  brings 
into  view  all  the  texts  in  which  He  is  called  Jeliovah,  God,  and 
Lord,  and  those  in  which  divine  attributes  and  prerogatives  are 
ascribed  to  Him. 

In  the  second,  he  treats  of  the  "  extensive  powers  of  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  in  its  present  glorified  state."  In  a  previous  essay 
he  took  the  position  that  the  "  human  soul  of  Christ  is  the  first, 
the  greatest,  the  wisest,  the  holiest,  and  the  best  of  all  created 
spirits."  2  He  argues  this  point  from  all  those  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture which  speak  of  the  exaltation  of  Christ  and  of  the  gift  to  Him 
of  absolutely  universal  dominion.  As  the  divine  nature  of  Christ 
does  not  admit  of  exaltation  or  of  receiving  anything  as  a  gift,  he 
inferred  that  these  passages  must  be  understood  of  his  human 
nature,  and  therefore  that  Christ  as  a  man  must  be  regarded  as 
exalted  over  all  created  beings.  To  the  objection,  "  How  is  it 
possible  that  a  human  spirit  should  be  endued  with  powers  of  so 
vast  an  extent  ?  "  he  answers,  first,  that  the  power  in  question  is 
not  infinite  ;  and  secondly,  that  if  the  doctrine  of  the  infinite 
divisibility  of  matter  be  true,  we  cannot  fix  the  minimum  of  small- 
ness,  and  how  then  can  we  determine  the  maximum  of  greatness. 
"  Why,"  he  asks,  "  may  not  the  human  soul  of  Christ  be  as  well 
appointed  to  govern  the  world,  as  the  soul  of  man  is  appointed  to 
govern  his  body,  when  it  is  evident  the  soul  of  man  does  not  know 
one  thousandth  part  of  the  fine  branchings  of  the  muscles  and 
nerves,  and  the  more  refined  vapour  or  animal  spirits  which  are 
parts  of  this  body  ?  "  ^  Thirdly,  we  can  hardly  set  a  limit  even  to 
our  own  capacity  ;  and  yet  the  "  soul  of  Christ  may  be  reasonably 
supposed  in  its  own  nature  to  transcend  the  powers  of  all  other 
souls  as  far  as  an  angel  exceeds  an  idiot,  and  yet  be  but  a  human 
soul  still,  {oY  gradus  non  mutant  speciem.''^^  Fourthly,  if  the  powers 
of  the  soul  of  Christ  were  not  in  his  state  of  humiliation  sufficient 
for  the  purposes  of  government  and  judgment,  that  does  not  prove 
that  they  are  not  now  sufficient  in  his  glorified  estate.  "  Who 
knows  what  'amazing  enlargement  may  attend  all  the  natural 
powers  of  man  when  advanced  to  a  state  of  glory?'  "^  Fifthly, 
and  mainly,  this  supreme   exaltation  of  the  power  of  the  human 

1  Watts'  Works,  ut  supra,  vol.  vi.  pp.  721-855.  2  jbid,  p.  706. 

3  Ibid.  p.  786.  •*  J^id-  P-  787. 

6  Ibid.  p.  789. 


§8.]        LATER  FORMS  OF  THE  DOCTRINE.        425 

soul  of  Christ  is  due  to  its  union  with  the  divine  nature.  It  was 
because  of  this  union  tliat  when  the  soul  of  Christ,  while  here  on 
earth,  willed  to  perform  a  miracle,  the  effect  immediately  followed. 
So  "  the  man  Christ  may  give  forth  all  the  commands  of  God 
whereby  the  world  is  governed."  ^  "  Upon  this  representation  of 
things,"  he  adds,  "the  various  language  of  Scripture  appears  to  be 
true,  and  is  made  very  intelligible.  Christ  says  '  He  can  do  nothing 
of  Himself,  He  knew  not  the  day  of  judgment'  when  He  was  here 
on  earth,  etc.,  and  yet  He  is  said  to  '  know  the  hearts  of  men,  and 
to  know  all  things  ' ;  for  as  fast  as  the  divine  mind  united  to  Him 
was  pleased  to  communicate  all  these  ideas,  so  fast  was  his  human 
nature  capable  of  receiving  them."  ^ 

The  third  discourse  is  devoted  to  proving  the  preexistence  of 
the  human  soul  of  Christ.  He  argues  from  the  fact  that  there  are 
many  expressions  in  the  Bible,  which  seem  to  imply  that  He  had 
a  dependent  nature  before  He  came  into  this  world.  He  is  called 
the  angel  or  messenger  of  God,  and  is  represented  as  sent  to  exe- 
cute his  will.  He  urges  also  the  fact  that  He  is  said  to  be  the 
image  of  God.  But  the  divine  essence  or  nature  cannot  be  the 
image  of  itself.  That  term  can  only  apply  to  a  created  nature 
united  to  the  divine,  so  that  the  "  complex  person  "  thus  consti- 
tuted, should  reveal  what  God  is.  An  argument  is  also  drawn 
from  all  those  passages  in  which  Christ  is  said  to  have  humbled 
Himself,  to  have  become  poor,  to  have  made  Himself  of  no  reputa- 
tion. All  this  cannot,  he  says,  be  properly  understood  of  the 
divine  nature,  but  is  perfectly  intelligible  and  full  of  meaning 
if  referred  to  the  human  soul  of  our  Lord.  It  was  an  act  of 
unspeakable  condescension  for  the  highest  intelligent  creature  to 
"empty  Himself"  and  become  as  ignorant  and  feeble  as  an 
infant,  and  to  submit  not  only  to  grow  in  wisdom,  but  to  subject 
Himself  to  the  infirmities  and  sufferings  of  our  mortal  state.  If 
asked  how  so  exalted  an  intellect  can  be  reduced  to  the  condition 
or  state  of  an  infant,  he  answers,  that  something  analogous  to  this 
not  unfrequently  occurs,  even  in  human  experience.  Men  of  ma- 
ture age  and  of  extensive  learning  have  lost  all  their  knowledge, 
and  have  been  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  learning  it  all  over 
again,  though  in  some  cases  it  has  returned  suddenly.  It  was  the 
same  nature  that  emptied  itself  that  was  afterwards  filled  with 
glory  as  a  recompense.  Another  argument  for  the  preexistence  of  - 
the  soul  of  Christ,  he  says,  may  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that  his 
incarnation   "'is  always  expressed    in   some  corporeal  languao-e, 

1  Watts,  Woi-h,  ut  supra,  vol.  vi.  p.  795.  2  /Jj^/.  p.  795^ 


426       PART  in.   Ch.  ni.  — the  person  of  christ. 

such  as  denotes  liis  taking  on  Him  animal  nature,  or  body,  or  flesh, 
without  the  least  mention  of  taking  a  soul.'  "  ^ 

Again,2  "  '  The  covenant  betwixt  God  the  Father  and  his  Son 
Jesus  Christ  for  the  redemption  of  mankind,  is  represented  in 
Scripture  as  being  made  and  agreed  upon  from  or  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world.  Is  it  not  then  most  proper  that  both  real 
parties  should  be  actually  present,  and  that  this  should  not  be 
transacted  merely  within  the  divine  essence  by  such  sort  of  distinct 
personalities  as  have  no  distinct  mind  and  will?  The  essence  of 
God  is  generally  agreed  by  our  Protestant  divines  to  be  the  same 
single  numerical  essence  in  all  three  personalities,  and  therefore  it 
can  be  but  one  conscious  mind  or  spirit.  Now  can  one  single  un- 
derstanding and  will  make  such  a  covenant  as  Scripture  repre- 
sents?' I  grant  the  divine  natui'e  which  is  in  Christ  from  eternity 
contrived  and  agreed  all  the  parts  of  this  covenant.  But  does  it 
not  add  a  lustre  and  glory,  and  more  conspicuous  equity,  to  this 
covenant,  to  suppose  the  man  Christ  Jesus  who  is  most  properly 
the  mediator  according  to  1  Tim.  ii.  5,  to  be  also  present  before 
the  world  was  made,  to  be  chosen  and  appointed  as  the  redeemer 
or  reconciler  of  mankind,  to  be  then  ordained  the  head  of  his  future 
people,  to  receive  promises,  grace,  and  blessings  in  their  name,  and 
to  accept  the  solemn  and  weighty  trust  from  the  hand  of  his 
Father,  that  is,  to  take  care  of  millions  of  souls  ?  " 

He  also  argues  from  what  the  Bible  teaches  of  the  Sonship  of 
Christ.  "  When  He  is  called  a  Son,  a  begotten  Son,  this  seems  to 
imply  derivation  and  dependency ;  and  perhaps  the  Sonship  of 
Christ,  and  his  being  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  may  be 
better  explained  by  attributing  it  to  his  human  soul,  existing  by 
some  peculiar  and  immediate  manner  of  creation,  formation,  or 
derivation  from  the  Father,  before  other  creatures  were  formed  ; 
especially  if  we  include  in  the  same  idea  of  Sonship  his  union  to 
the  divine  nature,  and  if  we  add  also  his  exaltation  to  the  office  of 
the  Messiah,  as  King  and  Lord  of  all."  ^ 

Dr.  Watts  explains  clearly  what  he  means  by  the  preexistence 
of  tlie  humanit}'  of  Christ,  when  he  says  :  *  "  All  the  idea  which 
I  have  of  a  human  soul  is  this,  namely,  a  created  mind  or  spirit 
which  hath  understanding  and  will,  and  rational  powers,  and  which 
is  fit  to  be  united  to  a  human  body,  in  sncli  a  manner  as  to  exert 
the  powers  of  a  man,  to  feel  the  appetites  and  sensibilities  and 
passions  of  a  man,  as  to  receive  impressions  or  sensations,  whether 

1  Watts'  Works,  vol.  vi.  p.  820.  "  Ibid.  p.  819. 

8  Ibid.  p.  825.  *  Ibid.  p.  BU. 


§  8.]  LATER  FORMS   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  427 

pleasant  or  painful,  by  the  means  of  that  body,  and  is  also  able  to 
actuate  and  influence  all  the  animal  powers  of  that  body  in  a  way 
agreeable  to  human  nature." 

The  above  is  very  far  from  being  a  full  exposition  of  the  consid- 
erations urged  by  Dr.  Watts  in  support  of  his  theory.  It  is  sim- 
'ply  a  selection  of  the  more  plausible  of  his  arguments  presented  in 
order  that  his  doctrine  may  be  properly  understood. 

It  appears  that  he  believed  in  the  eternal  Godhead  of  the  Logos 
as  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity  ;  and  that  God,  before  any 
other  creatures  were  called  into  existence,  created  a  human  soul 
in  personal  union  with  the  Logos  of  such  exalted  powers  as  to 
render  him  the  greatest  of  all  created  spirits  ;  that  the  incarnation 
consisted  in  this  complex  person  assuming  a  material  human  body 
with  its  animal  life  ;  that  the  humiliation  of  Christ  consisted  in  his 
human  soul  thus  exalted  in  its  own  nature,  emptying  itself  of  its 
knowledge,  power,  and  glory,  and  submitting  not  only  to  the  gradual 
development  of  his  humanity,  but  also  to  all  that  made  our  Lord 
while  here  on  earth  a  man  of  sorrows.  His  exaltation  consisted  in 
the  enlargement  of  the  powers  of  his  soul  during  his  state  of  humil- 
iation, and  in  his  resurrection  and  ascension  to  the  right  hand  of 
God. 

Ohjectio7is. 

The  more  obvious  objections  to  this  theory  are,  — 

1.  Tliat  it  is  contrary  to  the  common  faith  of  the  Church,  and, 
therefore,  to  the  obvious  sense  of  Scripture.  The  Bible  in  teach- 
ing that  the  Son  of  God  became  man,  thereby  teaches  that  He 
assumed  a  true  body  and  a  rational  soul.  For  neither  a  soul  with- 
out a  body,  nor  a  body  without  a  soul,  is  a  man  in  the  Scriptural 
sense  of  the  term.  It  was  the  Logos  which  became  man  ;  and  not 
a  God-man  that  assumed  a  material  body. 

2.  The  passages  of  Scripture  cited  in  its  support  are  interpreted, 
for  the  most  part,  in  viola,tion  of  the  recognized  principle  that  what- 
ever is  true  of  either  nature  in  Christ,  may  be  predicated  of  his 
person.  As  Christ  could  say,  "  I  thirst,"  without  implying  that 
his  divine  nature  was  subject  to  the  wants  of  a  material  body  ;  so 
He  could  say,  "  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in 
earth,"  without  teaching  that  such  power  vests  in  his  humanity. 

3.  The  doctrine  that  Christ's  human  soul  was  the  first  and  most 
exalted  of  created  spirits,  raises  Him  beyond  the  reach  of  human 
sympathies.  He  is,  as  man,  farther  from  us  than  the  angel  Ga- 
briel. We  need,  and  the  Bible  reveals  to  us  a,  so  to  speak,  more 
circumscribed  Saviour,  one  who,  although  true  God,  is  neverthe- 


428         PART   III.     Ch.   m.  — the   person   of   CHRIST. 

less  a  man  like  unto  his  brethren.,  whom  we  can  embrace  in  the 
arms  of  our  faith  and  love.^ 

§  9.  Modern  Forms  of  the  Doctrine. 
Dorner,  in  the  first  edition  of  his  work  on  the  "  Person  of 
Christ,"  says  that  the  Lutheran  theology  carried  the  attempt  to 
preserve  the  unity  of  Christ's  person,  on  the  Church  assumption 
tliat  He  possessed  two  distinct  natures,  to  the  utmost  extreme.  If 
that  attempt  be  a  failure,  nothing  more  remains.  He  holds  it  to  be 
a  failure  not  oidy  because  it  involves  the  impossible  assumption  of 
a  transfer  of  attributes  without  a  change  of  substance,  but  also  be- 
cause it  is  one-sided.  It  refuses  to  admit  of  the  communication  of 
human  attributes  to  the  divine  nature,  whilst  it  insists  on  the  trans- 
fer of  divine  perfections  to  the  human  nature.  And  moreover,  he 
urges,  that  admitting  all  the  Lutheran  theory  claims,  the  union  of 
the  two  natures  remains  just  as  unreal  as  it  is  on  the  Church  doc- 
trine. Any  distinction  of  natures,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the 
words,  must,  he  says,  be  given  up.  It  is  on  this  assumption  that 
the  modern  views  of  the  person  of  Christ  are  founded.  These 
views  may  be  divided  into  two  classes,  the  Pantheistical  and  the 
Theistical.  These  two  classes,  however,  have  a  good  deal  in  com- 
mon. Both  are  founded  on  the  principle  of  the  oneness  of  God  and 
man.  This  is  admitted  on  all  sides.  "  The  characteristic  feature 
of  all  recent  Christologies,"  says  Dorner,  "  is  the  endeavour  to 
point  out  the  essential  unity  of  the  divine  and  human."  ^  The 
heading  of  the  section  in  which  this  admission  occurs,  is,  "  The 
Foundations  of  the  New  Christology  laid  by  Schelling,  Hegel, 
Schleiermacher."  This  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  the  New 
Christology  is  founded  on  the  principles  of  the  pantheistic  philoso- 
phy. Baur^  says  the  same  thing.  He  entitles  the  last  division 
of  his  work  on  the  Trinity,  "  Die  gegenseitige  Durchdringung  der 
Philosophie  und  der  Theologie,"  i.  e.,  The  mutual  interpenetration 
of  Philosophy  and  Theology.  The  latter  is  merged  into  the  for- 
mer. Dr.  Ullmann  says,  the  doctrine  of  the  oneness  of  God  and 
man,  which  he  represents  as  the  fundamental  idea  of  Schleierma- 

1  Dr.  Watts,  vol.  vi.  pp.  853,  854,  refers  to  several  distinguished  writers  and  theologians 
as  agreeing  with  him  as  to  his  doctrine  of  the  preexistence  of  the  soul  of  Christ.  Among 
them  are  Dr.  Henrv  More,  Mystery  of  Godliness;  Dr.  Edward  Fowler,  Bishop  of  Gloucester, 
in  his  Discourse  oj"  the  descent  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus  from  Heaven;  Dr.  Francis  Gastrell 
Bishop  of  Chester,  in  his  Remarks  on  Dr.  Clarke's  Hcripture  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity;  Dr 
Thomas  Burnet,  of  the  Charter  House,  in  his  book,  De  Statu  Mortitorum  et  Besuryentium. 

2  Dorner,  div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  p.  101. 

3  Die  christliche  Lehre  von  der  Dreieini(/keit  und  Menschtcerdnnq  Gottes  in  ihrer  ges- 
chichllichen  Enticicklung.   Von  Dr.  Ferdinand  Cliristian  Baur,  Tiibingen,  1843,  vol.  iii.  p.  751. 


§9.]       MODERN  FORMS  OF  THE  DOCTRINE.       429 

cher's  theology  and  of  Christianity  itself,  is  not  entirely  new.  It 
was  inculcated  by  the  German  Mystics  of  the  Middle  Ages.^  He- 
gel says  that  what  the  Bible  teaches  of  Christ  is  not  true  of  an 
individual,  but  only  of  mankind  as  a  whole  ;  and  Hegel's  Christo- 
logical  ideas,  Dr.  Johu  Nevin  of  Merccrsburg,  says,  "  are  very 
significant  and  full  of  instruction."  ^  The  objection  that  these  prin- 
ciples are  pantheistical,  he  pronounces  "  a  mere  sound  without  any 
force  whatever,"  and  adds  that  we  need  a  Christian  pantheism  to 
oppose  the  antichristian  pantheism  of  the  day.  Schleiermacher 
says  that  a  pantheism  which  holds  to  the  formula  "  One  and  All  " 
("  the  all-one-doctrine  ")  is  perfectly  consistent  with  religion,  and 
differs  little  in  its  effects  from  Monotheism  !  Similar  avowals  might 
be  adduced  without  number.  ■  Theologians  of  this  class  deny  that 
God  and  man  are  essentially  different.  They  repeat,  almost  with 
every  breath,  that  God  and  man  are  one,  and  they  make  this  the 
fundamental  idea  of  Christianity,  and  especially  of  Christology. 

Pantheistical  Christology. 

As  Christian  theology  purports  to  be  an  exhibition  of  the  theol- 
ogy of  the  Bible,  every  theory  which  involves  the  denial  of  a  per- 
sonal God,  properly  lies  beyond  its  sphere.  In  modern  systems, 
however,  there  is  such  a  blending  of  pantheistic  principles  with 
theistic  doctrines,  that  the  two  cannot  be  kept  entirely  separate. 
Pantheistical  and  theistical  theologians,  of  the  modern  school, 
unite  in  asserting  "  the  oneness  of  God  and  man."  They  under- 
stand that  doctrine,  however,  in  different  senses.  With  the  former 
it  is  understood  to  mean  identity,  so  that  man  is  only  the  highest 
existence-form  of  God  ;  with  tlve  others,  it  often  means  nothing 
more  than  that  "  natura  humana  capax  est  naturce  divince.^'  The 
human  is  capable  of  receiving  the  attributes  of  the  divine.  Man 
may  become  God. 

It  follows,  in  the  first  place,  from  the  doctrine,  that  God  is  the 
only  real  Being  of  which  the  world  is  the  ever  changing  phenome- 
non, that  "  die  Menschwerdung  Gottes  ist  eine  Menschwerdung 
von  Ewigkeit."  The  incarnation  of  God  is  from  eternity.  And, 
in  the  second  place,  that  this  process  is  continuous,  complete  in  no 
one  instance,  but  only  in  the  whole.  Every  man  is  a  form  of  the 
life  of  God,  but  the  infinite  is  never  fully  realized  or  revealed  in 
any  one  manifestation.     Some  of  these  philosophers  were  willing  to 

1  Dr.  UHmann,  Es?aj'  in  the  Sludien  unci  Kriliken  firr  184G. 

2  The  Mystical  Presence.  A  Vindication  of  the  Reformed  or  Calvinistic  Doctrine  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist.  By  the  Kev.  John  W.  Nevin,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Seminary 
of  the  German  Reformed  Church,  Philadelphia,  1846. 


430  PART  m.   Cii.  m.  —  THE  PERSON   OF   CHRIST. 

say  that  God  was  more  fully  manifested  in  Christ  than  in  any  other 
individual  of  our  race,  but  the  difference  between  Him  and  other 
men  is  only  one  of  degree.  Others  say  that  the  peculiar  distinction 
of  Christ  was  that  He  had  a  clearer  view  and  a  deeper  conviction 
of  the  identity  of  God  and  man  than  any  other  man.  It  all  amounts 
to  the  summation  of  the  doctrine  as  given  by  Strauss.^  "  If,"  says 
he,  "  the  idea  of  the  oneness  of  the  divine  and  human  natures,  of 
God  and  man,  be  a  reality,  does  it  follow  that  this  reality  is  effected 
or  manifested  once  for  all  in  a  single  individual,  as  never  before 
and  never  after  him  ?  .  .  .  .  An  idea  is  never  exhibited  in  all  its 
fulness  in  a  single  exemplar ;  and  in  all  others  only  imperfectly. 
An  idea  is  always  realized  in  a  variety  and  multiplicity  of  exem- 
plars, which  complement  each  other ;  its  richness  being  diffused  by 
the  constant  change  of  individuals,  one  succeeding  or  supplanting 

another Mankind,  the  human  race,  is  the  God-man.    The 

key  to  a  true  Christology  is  that  the  predicates  which  the  Church 
applies  to  Christ,  as  an  individual,  belong  to  an  idea,  or  to  a  generic 
whole."  So  Blasche  '^  says,  "  We  understand  by  God's  becoming 
man,  not  the  revelation  of  Himself  in  one  or  more  of  the  most  per- 
fect of  men,  but  the  manifestation  of  Himself  in  the  race  of  men  (in 
der  ganzen  Menschheit)." 

Theistical  Christology, 

We  have  the  authority  of  Dorner  for  saying  that  the  modern 
speculations  on  Christology  are  founded  on  the  two  principles  that 
there  is  but  one  nature  in  Christ,  and  that  human  nature  is  capax 
naturce  divince,  is  capable  of  being  made  divine.  To  this  must  be 
added  a  third,  although  Dorner  himself  does  not  hold  it,  that  the 
divine  is  capable  of  becoming  human. 

The  advocates  of  these  principles  agree,  First,  in  admitting  that 
there  was  a  true  growth  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus.  When  an  infant 
He  was  as  feeble,  as  ignorant,  and  as  unconscious  of  moral  character 
as  other  infants.  When  a  child  He  had  no  more  intellectnal  or 
physical  strength  than  other  children.  There  is,  however,  a  differ- 
ence in  their  mode  of  statement  as  to  what  Christ  was  during  the 
maturity  of  his  earthly  life.  According  to  some.  He  had  no  super- 
human knowledge  or  power.  All  He  knew  was  communicated  to 
Him,  some  say  by  the  Father,  others  say  by  the  Logos.  The 
miracles  which   He   wrought   were    not    by  his   own  power,   but 

1  Das  Leben  Jesu,  §  149,  3d  edit.  Tubingen,  1839,  vol.  ii.  pp.  766,  767;  and  Dogmatik. 
vol.  ii.  p.  214. 
'^  Quoted  by  Strauss,  Dogmatik,  edit.  Tubingen,  1841,  vol.  ii.  p.  214. 


§9.]       MODERN  FORMS  OF  THE  DOCTRINE.       431 

by  the  power  of  God.  At  the  grave  of  Lazarus  He  prayed  for 
power  to  restore  his  friend  to  life,  or  rather  that  God  would  raise 
him  from  the  dead;  and  He  gave  thanks  that  his  prayer  was 
heard. 

Secondly,  they  agree  that  the  development  of  the  humanity  of 
our  Lord  was  without  sin.  He  was  from  the  beginning  holy, 
hai'mless,  undefiled,  and  separate  from  sinners.  Nevertheless  He 
had  to  contend  with  all  the  infirmities  of  our  nature,  and  to  resist 
all  the  temptations  arising  from  the  flesh,  the  world,  and  the  devil, 
with  which  his  people  have  to  contend.  He  was  liable  to  sin.  As 
He  was  subject  to  hunger,  thirst,  weariness,  and  pain,  as  He  had 
feelings  capable  of  being  wounded  by  ingratitude  and  insult,  He 
was  liable  to  the  impatience  and  resentment  which  suffering  or 
injury  is  adapted  to  produce.  As  He  was  susceptible  of  pleasure 
from  the  love  and  admiration  of  others.  He  was  exposed  to  the 
temptation  of  seeking  the  honour  which  comes  from  men.  In  all 
things,  however.  He  was  without  sin. 

Thirdly,  they  agree  that  it  was  only  gradually  that  Christ  came  to 
the  knowledge  that  He  was  a  divine  person,  and  into  the  possession 
and  use  of  divine  attributes.  Communications  of  knowledge  and 
power  were  made  to  Him  from  time  to  time  from  on  high,  so  that 
both  the  knowledge  of  what  He  was  and  the  consciousness  of  the 
possession  of  divine  perfections  came  to  Him  by  degrees,  Christ's 
exaltation,  tlierefore,  began  and  was  carried  on  while  He  was  here 
on  earth,  but  it  was  not  until  his  resurrection  and  ascension  that 
He  became  truly  and  forever  divine. 

Fourthly,  since  his  ascension  and  session  at  the  right  liand  of 
God,  He  is  still  a  man,  and  only  a  man.  Nevertheless  He  is  an 
infinite  man.  A  man  with  all  the  cliaracteristics  of  a  human  soul 
possessed  of  all  the  perfections  of  the  Godhead.  Since  his  ascension, 
as  Gess  expresses  it,  a  man  has  been  taken  into  the  adorable  Trin- 
ity. "  As  the  glorified  Son  remains  man,  a  man  is  thus  received 
into  the  trinitarian  life  of  the  Deity  from  and  by  the  glorification 
of  the  Son."^     Thomasius  says  the  same  thing.     "Die  immanente 

1  The  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ.  Freely  translated  from  the  German  of 
W.  F.  Gess,  with  many  additions,  by  J.  A.  Reubelt,  D.  D.,  Professor  in  Indiana  University, 
Bloomington,  Ind.  Andover:  Warren  F.  Draper,  1870,  p.  414.  This  work  is  admirably 
translated,  and  presents  the  clearest  outline  of  the  modern  doctrine  of  Kenosis  wiiich  has 
yet  appeared.  The  author  expresses  his  satisfaction  that  he  is  sustained  in  his  views  arrived 
at  by  the  study  of  the  Scriptures,  t>y  the  authority  of  Liebner  and  Thomasius,  who  reached 
substantially  the  s^me  conclu-ions  by  the  way  of  speculation.  There  is  ground  for  this  self- 
congratulation  of  the  author,  for  his  book  is  far  more  Scriptural  in  its  treatment  of  the  sub- 
ject than  any  other  book  of  tiie  same  class  with  which  we  are  acquainted.  It  calls  for  a 
thorough  review  and  candid  criticism. 


432         PART  in.     Ch.   m.  — the   person   of  CHRIST. 

Lebensbewegung  der  drei  Persoiien  ist  iiunmehr  gewissermassen 
eine  iiottlicli-nienschliche  geworden  ;  ....  So  tief  ist  in  der  Person 
Christi  die  Menschheit  in  den  Kreis  der  Trinitat  hereingenommen 
—  und  zwar  nicht  auf  voriibergehende  Weise,  sondern  fur  immer. 
Denn  der  Sohn  bleibt  ewig  Mensch."  ^  That  is  :  The  immanent 
life  movement  of  the  three  persons  has  now  become  in  a  measure 
divine-human  ;  ....  so  deep  has  humanity  in  the  person  of 
Christ  been  taken  into  the  sphere  of  the  Trinity,  —  and  that  not 
in  a  temporary  manner,  but  forever.  For  the  Son  remains  man 
eternally.  On  the  following  page  he  says  that  humanity,  or  man- 
hood (Menschsein),  has  become  the  permanent  existence-form  of 
God  the  Son.  And  again ^  he  says  that  humanity  (das  menschliche 
Geschlecht)  is  "  exalted  to  full  equality  with  God  "  (schlecht  Gott 
selbst  gleichgesetzt).  This  would  be  absolutely  impossible  were 
not  human  nature  in  its  original  constitution  capable  of  receiving 
all  divine  perfections  and  of  becoming  absolutely  divine.  Accord- 
ingly, in  this  connection,  Thomasius  says  that  man  is  of  all  crea- 
tures the  nearest  to  God.^  "  He  must  from  his  nature  be  capable 
of  full  participation  in  the  divine  glory  ;  he  must  be  the  oi'gan  into 
which  the  entire  fuhiess  of  the  divine  love  can  be  poured,  and 
through  which  it  can  adequately  act,  otherwise  we  cannot  under- 
stand how  God  could  appropriate  human  nature  as  his  own  perma- 
nent form  of  existence." 

The  result  of  the  incarnation,  therefore,  is  that  God  becomes 
man  in  such  a  sense  that  the  Son  of  God  has  no  life  or  activity,  no 
knowledge,  presence,  or  power  outside  of  or  apart  from  his  human- 
ity. In  Christ  there  is  but  one  life,  one  activity,  one  consciousness. 
Every  act  of  the  incarnate  Logos  is  a  human  act,  and  every  expe- 
rience of  the  humanity  of  Christ,  all  his  sorrows,  infirmities,  and 
pains,  were  the  experience  of  the  Logos.  "The  absolute  life,  which 
is  the  being  of  God,  exists  in  the  narrow  hmits  of  an  earthly-human 
life  ;  absolute  holiness  and  truth,  the  essential  attinbutes  of  God, 
develop  themselves  in  the  form  of  human  thinking  and  willing ; 
absolute  love  has  assumed  a  human  form,  it  lives  as  human  feeling, 
as  human  sensibility  in  the  heart  of  this  man  ;  absolute  freedom 
has  the  form  of  human  self-determination.  The  Son  of  God  has 
not  reserved  for  Himself  a  special  existence  form  (ein  besonderes 
Fiirsichseyn),  a  special  consciousness,  a  special  sphere  or  power  of 
action  ;  He  does  not  exist  anywhere  outside  of  the  flesh  (nee  Ver- 

1  Christi  Person  und  Werk.  Darstellung  der  evangelisch-lutherischen  Dogmatik  vom  Mil- 
telpunhe  der  Christologie  mis.  Von  G.  Thomasius,  Dr.  u.  ord.  Professor  der  Theologie  an 
der  Universitat  Erlangen.    Zweite  erweiterte  Auflage,  Erlangen,  1857,  vol.  ii.  p.  295. 

2  Jbid.  p.  299.  3  Md.  p.  296. 


§  9]  MODERN   FORMS  OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  433 

bum  extra  carnem  nee  caro  extra  Verbum).  He  has  in  the  totahty 
of  his  being  become  man,  his  existence-and-life-fbrm  is  that  of  a 
corporeal-spiritual  man  subject  to  the  limitations  of  time  and  space. 
The  other  side  of  this  relation  is  tliat  the  liuman  nature  is  taken  up 
entirely  into  the  divine,  and  is  pervaded  by  it.  It  has  neither  a 
special  human  consciousness  nor  a  special  human  activity  of  the 
will  for  itself  in  distinction  from  that  of  the  Logos,  just  as  the  latter 
has  nothing  which  does  not  belong  to  the  former ;  in  the  human 
thinking,  williug,  and  acting,  the  Logos  thinks,  wills,  and  acts.  All 
dualism  of  a  divine  and  human  existence-form,  of  a  divine  and 
human  consciousness,  of  a  concomitancy  of  divine  and  human 
action,  is  of  necessity  excluded  ;  as  is  also  any  successive  communi- 
cation (Hineinbildung)  of  one  to  the  other ;  it  is  an  identical  living 
activity,  sensibility,  and  development,  because  it  is  one  Ego,  one 
divine  human  personality  (unio,  communio,  communicatio,  natu- 
rarum)."^ 

As  to  the  manner  in  which  this  complete  identification  of  the 
human  and  divine  in  the  person  of  Christ  is  effected,  there  are,  as 
above  intimated,  two  opinions.  According  to  Dorner  there  is  a 
human  soul  to  begin  with,  to  which  the  Eternal  Logos,  without 
subjecting  Himself  to  any  change,  from  time  to  time  communicates 
his  divinity,  as  the  human  becomes  more  and  more  capable  of 
receiving  the  perfections  of  God,  until  at  last  it  becomes  completely 
divine.  With  this  Dorner  connected  a  philosophical  theory  con- 
cerning the  relation  of  Christ  to  the  universe,  and  especially  to  the 
whole  spiritual  world.^ 

The  other  view  of  the  subject  is,  that  the  Eternal  Logos,  by  a 
process  of  self-limitation,  divested  Himself  of  all  his  divine  attributes. 
He  ceased  to  be  omnipresent,  omniscient,  and   omnipotent.     He 

1  Thomasius,  ut  supra,  pp.  201,  202 

2  Baur,  in  his  Lehre  von  der  Dreieinif/keil,  vol.  iii.  p.  987,  gives  the  following  account  of 
Dorner's  theory:  Wie  der  Mensch  das  Haupt  und  die  Krone  der  natiirlichen  Schopfung  sei, 
so  sei  auch  die  Menscheit  als  die  auseinandergetretene  Vielheit  eines  hohern  Ganzen,  einer 
hohern  Idee,  zu  betrachten,  namlich  Christi.  Und  wie  die  Natur  sich  nicht  bios  in  der  Idee 
eines  Menschen  zur  Einheit  versamntile,  sondern  im  wirklichen  Menschen,  so  fasse  sich  auch 
die  Menschheit  nicht  zusammen  in  einer  blossen  Idee,  einem  idealen  Christus,  sondern  in 
dem  wirklichen  Gottmenschen,  der  ihre  Totiilitiit  personlich  darstelle,  und  aller  einzelnen 
Individualitaten  Urbilder  oder  ideale  PersJinlichkeiten  in  sich  versammle.  Und  wenn  die 
erste  Zusammenfassung  zerstreuter  Moniente  in  Adam,  wenn  auch  selbst  noch  ein  Natur- 
wesen,  doch  eine  unendlich  hohere  Gestalt  dargestellt  habe,  als  jedes  der  einzelnen  Natur- 
wesen,  so  stehe  auch  der  zweite  Adam,  obwolil  in  sich  eine  Zusammenfiissung  der  Mensch- 
heit und    selbst  noch  ein  Mensch,  doch  als  eine  unendlich  hohere  Gestalt  da,  denn  alle 

'  einzelnen  Darstellungen  unserer  Gattung.  Sei  Adam  das  Haupt  der  natiirlichen  Schopfung 
gewesen,  als  solches  aber  bereits  hiniiberreichend  mit  seinem  Wesen  in  das  Reich  des  Geistes 
und  hiniibergreifend  iiber  die  natiirliche  Welt,  so  sei  Christus  das  Haupt  der  geistigen  Schop- 
fung, als  solches  aber  schon  hiniiberweisend  von  der  Menschheit  auf  eine  kosniische  oder 
ine^aphysiche  Bedeutung  seiner  Person. 
VOL.  II.  28 


434         PART   m.   Ch.   m.  — the   person   of   CHRIST. 

reduced  Himself,  so  to  speak,  to  the  dimensions  of  a  man.  While 
an  infant,  as  before  said,  He  had  no  knowledge  or  power  which 
does  not  belong  to  any  other  human  infant.  He  went  through  the 
regular  process  of  growth  and  development,  and  had  all  the  experi- 
ences of  ordinary  men,  yet  without  sin.  But  as  the  substance  of 
the  Logos  Avas  the  substance  of  the  infant  born  of  the  Virgin,  it 
continued  to  develop  not  only  until  it  reached  a  height  of  excellence 
and  glory  to  which  no  other  man  ever  attained,  but  until  it  ulti- 
mately culminated  in  full  equality  with  God. 

On  this  point  Thomasius  says,  First,  that  if  the  Eternal  Son, 
after  the  assumption  of  humanity,  retained  his  divine  perfections 
and  prerogatives,  He  did  not  become  man,  nor  did  He  unite  Him- 
self with  humanity.  He  hovered  over  it ;  and  included  it  as  a 
larger  circle  does  a  smaller.  But  there  was  no  real  contact  or 
communication.  Secondly,  if  at  the  moment  of  the  incarnation  the 
divine  nature  in  the  fulness  of  its  being  and  perfection  was  commu- 
nicated to  the  humanity,  then  Christ  could  not  have  had  a  human 
existence.  The  historical  life  is  gone  ;  and  all  bond  of  relationship 
and  sympathy  with  us  is  destroyed.  Thirdly,  the  only  way  in 
w^hich  the  great  end  in  view  could  be  answered  was  that  God 
Himself  by  a  process  of  depotentiation,  or  self-limitation,  should 
become  man  ;  that  He  should  take  upon  Himself  a  form  of  exist- 
ence subject  to  the  limitations  of  time  and  space,  and  pass  through 
the  ordinary  and  regular  process  of  human  development,  and  take 
part  in  all  the  sinless  experiences  of  a  human  life  and  death. ^ 

Ehrard. 

Ebrard  puts  the  doctrine  in  a  somewhat  different  form.  He 
holds  that  the  Logos  reduced  Himself  to  the  dimensions  of  a  man  ; 
but  at  the  same  time  retained  and  exercised  his  divine  perfections 
as  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity.  In  answer  to  the  question. 
How  human  and  divine  attributes  can  be  united  in  the  same  person, 
he  says  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  is  to  be  found  in  the  original 
constitution  and  destiny  of  humanity.  Man  was  designed  for  this 
supreme  dominion,  perfect  holiness,  and  boundless  knowledge. 
"  The  glorification  of  God  as  Son  in  time  is  identical  with  the  acme 
of  the  normal  development  of  man."  It  is  held  by  many,  not  by 
all  of  the  advocates  of  this  theory,  that  the  incarnation  would  have 
taken  place  had  men  never  sinned.  It  entered  into  the  divine 
purpose  in  reference  to  man  that  he  should  thus  attain  oneness  with 
Himself. 

^  Thomasius,  Christi  Peison  und  Wei-k,  vol.  ii.  pp.  141-143. 


§9.]       MODERN  FORMS  OF  THE  DOCTRINE.       435 

As  to  the  still  more  difficult  question,  How  can  the  Son  as  the 
second  person  of  the  Trinity  retain  his  divine  perfections  (as  Ehrard 
holds  that  He  does),  and  yet,  as  revealed  on  earth,  lay  them  aside? 
"  The  one  is  world-ruling  and  omniscient,  and  the  other  is  not," 
he  says  we  must  understand  the  prohlem.  It  is  not  that  two 
natures  become  one  nature.  "  Two  natures  as  two  things  (Stiicken) 
are  out  of  the  question."  The  Logos  is  not  one  nature,  and  the 
incarnate  Son  of  God,  Jesus,  another  ;  but  the  incarnate  Son  pos- 
sesses the  pi-operties  of  both  natures.  The  question  only  is,  How 
can  the  incarnate  Logos,  since  He  has  not  the  one  nature,  the 
divine,  in  the  form  of  God  (in  der  Evvigkeitsform),  be  one  with 
the  world-governing  Logos  who  is  in  the  form  of  God  ?  This 
question,  which  is  equivalent  to  asking.  How  the  same  individual 
mind  can  be  finite  and  infinite  at  the  same  time,  he  answers  b}' 
saying,  first,  that  the  continuity  of  existence  does  not  depend  upon 
continuity  of  consciousness.  A  man  in  a  swoon  or  in  a  state  of 
magnetic  sleep,  is  the  same  person,  although  his  consciousness  be 
suspended  or  abnormal.  That  is  true,  but  the  question  is,  How 
the  same  mind  can  be  conscious  and  unconscious  at  the  same  time, 
How  the  same  individual  Loo-os  can  be  a  feeble  infant  and  at  the 
same  time  the  intelligently  active  world-governing  God.  Secondly, 
he  admits  that  the  above  answer  does  not  fully  meet  the  case,  and 
therefore  adds  that  the  whole  difficulty  disappears  when  we  remem- 
ber (dass  die  Ewigkeit  nicht  eine  der  Zeit  parallellaufende  Linie 
ist),  that  Eternity  and  Time  are  not  parallel  lines.  But,  thirdly, 
seeing  that  this  is  not  enough,  he  says  that  the  Eternal  Logos 
overlooks  his  human  form  of  existence  with  one  glance  (mit  einem 
Schlage),  whereas  the  incarnate  Logos  does  not,  but  with  true 
human  consciousness,  looks  forward  and  backward.  All  this  avails 
nothing.  The  contradiction  remains.  The  theory  assumes  that 
the  same  individual  mind  can  be  conscious  and  unconscious,  finite 
and  infinite,  ignorant  and  omniscient,  at  the  same  time.^ 

Cress. 

Gess  admits  the  contradiction  involved  in  the  doctrine  as  pre- 
sented by  Ebrard,  and  therefore  adopts  the  common  form  of  the 
theory.  He  holds  that  the  Eternal  Son  at  the  incarnation  laid 
aside  the  Godhead  and  became  a  man.  The  substance  of  the 
Logos  remained  ;  but  that  substance  was  in  the  form  of  an  infimt, 
and  had  nothing  beyond  an  infant's  knowledge  or  power.     In  the 

1  Chrislliike  Dogmaiik.     Von  Johannes  Heinrich  August  Ebrard,  Doctor  und  ord.  Pro- 
fessor der  ref.  Theologie  zu  Erlaiigen.     Konigsberg,  1852,  vol.  ii.  §§  391-39-t,  pp.  1 42-149. 


436        PART  m.      Ch.  III.  — the   person    of   CHRIST. 

Trinity,  the  Father  is  God  of  Himself;  the  Son  is  God  bv  the  com- 
munication of  the  divine  life  from  the  Father.  During  the  earthly 
career  of  the  Logos  the  communication  of  the  divine  life  was  sus- 
pended. The  Logos  reduced  to  the  limitations  of  manhood,  re- 
ceived from  the  Father  such  communications  of  supernatural  power 
as  He  needed.  When  He  ascended  and  sat  down  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  He  received  the  divine  life  in  all  its  fulness  as  He 
had  possessed  it  before  He  came  into  the  world.  "  The  same  sub- 
stance," he  says,  "  slumbered  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin,  without 
self-consciousness,  which  thirty-four  years  after  yielded  itself  a 
sacrifice,  without  blemish  and  spot,  to  the  Father,  having  previously 
revealed  to  mankind  the  truth,  which  it  had  perfectly  compre- 
hended. At  the  time  of  this  slumber  there  already  existed  in  this 
substance  that  indestructible  life  by  virtue  of  which  it  had  accom- 
plished our  redemption  (Heb.  vii.  16),  as  well  as  the  power  to 
know  the  Father  as  no  other  knows  Him  (Matt.  xi.  27),  but  it 
was  unconscious  life.  Moreover,  the  same  substance  which  now 
slumbered  in  unconsciousness,  had  before  existed  with  the  Father 
as  the  Logos,  by  whom  the  Father  had  created,  governed,  and 
preserved  the  world,  but  it  was  no  longer  aware  of  this."  ^  On 
the  opposite  page,  it  is  said,  that  it  is  the  self-conscious  will  of  a 
man  that  calls  all  his  powers  into  action.  "  When  this  sinks  into 
slumber,  all  the  powers  of  the  soul  fall  asleep.  It  was  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Logos  which  in  itself  had  the  power  to  call  the  world 
into  existence,  to  uphold  and  enlighten  it ;  but  when  the  Logos 
sank  into  the  slumber  of  unconsciousness,  his  eternal  holiness,  his 
omniscience,  his  omnipresence,  and  all  his  really  divine  attributes 
were  gone  ;  it  being  the  self-conscious  will  of  the  Logos  through 
which  all  the  divine  powers  abiding  in  Him  had  been  called  into 
action.  They  were  gone,  i.  e.,  suspended,  — existing  still,  but  only 
potentially.  Fuither,  a  man  when  he  awakes  from  sleep  is  at  once 
in  full  possession  of  all  his  powers  and  faculties  ;  but  when  con- 
sciousness burst  upon  Jesus  it  was  not  that  of  the  eternal  Logos, 
but  a  really  human  self-consciousness,  which  develops  by  degrees 

and  preserves  its  identity  only  through  constant  changes 

It  was  this  human  form  of  self-conscious  existence  which  the  Logos 
chose  in  his  act  of  self-divestiture.  Hence  it  plainly  appears  that 
omniscience,  which  sees  and  knows  all  things  at  once,  and  from 
one  central  point,  and  the  unchangeable  merging  of  the  will  into 
the  Father's,  or  divine  holiness,  are  not  to  be  attributed  to  Jesus 

1  The  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Persmi  of  Christ.     Translated  from  the  German,  by  J. 
A.  Reubelt,  D.  D.,  p.  342. 


§9]  MODERN  FORMS    OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  437 

while  on  earth  ;  and  the  same  with  the  unchangeable  bliss  of  the 
livine  life.  Nor  was  it  only  eternal  self-consciousness  which  the 
Son  laid  aside,  but  He  also  'went  out  from  the  Father.'  We  are 
not  to  understand  that  the  indwelling  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Spirit  in  each  other  had  been  dissolved,  but  that  the  Father's  giving 
the  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself,  as  the  Father  has,  was  suspended. 
Having  laid  aside  his  self-consciousness  and  activity.  He  lost  with 
this  the  capacity  of  receiving  into  Himself  the  stream  of  life  from 
the  Father,  and  sending  it  forth  again  ;  in  other  words.  He  was  no 
longer  omnipotent.  Equally  lost,  or  laid  aside,  was  his  omnipres- 
ence, which  must  not,  at  all  events,  be  considered  as  universally 
diffused,  but  as  dependent  on  the  self-conscious  will."  ^ 

Memarks. 

1.  The  first  remark  to  be  made  on  this  theory  in  all  its  forms  is 
that  it  is  a  departure  from  the  faith  of  the  Church.  This  objection 
turns  up  first  on  every  occasion,  because  that  is  its  proper  place. 
If  the  Bible  be  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ;  and  if 
the  Bible  be  a  plain  book,  and  if  the  Spirit  guides  the  people  of 
God  (not  the  external  church,  or  body  of  mere  professing  Chris- 
tians) into  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  then  the  presumption  is 
invincible  that  what  all  true  Christians  believe  to  be  the  sense  of 
Scripture  is  its  sense.  The  whole  Christian  world  has  believed, 
and  still  does  believe,  that  Christ  was  a  true  man  ;  that  He  had  a 
real  body  and  a  human  soul.  The  Council  of  Chalcedon  in  formu- 
lating this  article  of  the  common  faith,  declared  that  Christ  was,  and 
is,  God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  person  forever ; 
that  according  to  the  one  nature  He  is  consubstantial  (o/ioot'o-to?) 
with  us,  and  according  to  the  other  He  is  consubstantial  with  the 
Father.  There  is  no  dispute  as  to  the  sense  in  which  the  Council 
used  the  word  nature,  because  it  has  an  established  meaning  in 
theology,  and  because  it  is  explained  by  the  use  of  the  Latin  vvord 
consubstantial,  and  the  Greek  word  o/ioovo-ios.  Nor  is  it  questioned 
that  the  decisions  of  that  Council  have  been  accepted  by  the  whole 
Church.  This  doctrine  of  two  natures  in  Christ  the  new  theory 
rejects.  This,  as  we  have  seen,  Dorner  expi'essly  asserts.  We 
have  seen,  also,  that  Ebrard  says,  that  the  idea  of  two  natures  in 
the  sense  of  two  substances  (Stiicke,  concrete  existences)  is  out  of 
the  question.  The  Logos  did  not  assume  human  nature,  but  hur 
man  attributes  :  He  appeared  in  the  fashion  of  a  man.  Gess,  in 
his  luminous  book,  teaches  over  and  over,  that  it  was  the  substance 

1   The  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  pp.  diS,  344. 


438  PART  m.     Ch.   m.  — the   person   of   CHRIST. 

of  tlie  Logos  that  was  the  human  soul  of  Christ.  He  speaks  of  his 
"  Logos-nature  ;  "  of  the  "  Logos  being  the  life,  or  life-principle  " 
of  his  humanity.  He  saj'S,  in  so  many  words,-  that  the  soul  of 
Jesus  was  "  not  like  that  of  other  men,  a  soul  created  by  God  and 
for  God,  but  the  Logos  in  the  form  of  human  existence."  It  is 
consonant,  lie  says,  "  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  soul,  as  being  the 
Logos  existing  in  human  form,  that  God  should  take  possession  of 
it  in  a  peculiar  manner."  This  idea  is  the  very  essence  of  the 
doctrine.  For  if  the  Logos  "emptied"  Himself,  if  He  laid  aside 
his  omnipresence  and  omnipotence,  and  became  a  human  soul, 
what  need  or  what  possibiHty  remains  of  another  newly  created 
soul  ? 

This  is  not  Apollinarianism  ;  for  Apollinaris  taught  that  the 
Logos  supplied  the  place  of  a  rational  soul  in  the  person  of  Christ. 
He  did  not  become  such  a  soul,  but,  retaining  m  actu  as  well  as  in 
potentia,  the  fulness  of  the  divine  perfections,  took  its  place.  Nor 
is  it  exactly  Eutychianism.  For  Eutyches  said  that  there  were 
two  natures  before  the  union,  and  only  one  after  it.  The  two 
were  so  united  as  to  become  one.  This  the  theory  before  us  de- 
nies, and  affirms  that  from  the  beginning  the  Logos  was  the  sole 
rational  element  in  the  constitution  of  the  person  of  our  Lord.  It 
agrees,  however,  with  both  these  ancient  and  Church-rejected 
errors  in  their  essential  principles.  It  agrees  with  the  Apollinari- 
ans  in  saying  that  the  Logos  was  the  rational  element  in  Christ  ; 
and  it  agrees  with  the  Eutychians  in  saying  that  Christ  had  but  one 
nature. 

The  doctrine  is  in  still  more  obvious  contradiction  to  the  decis- 
ions of  the  Council  of  Constanlinople  on  the  Monothelite  contro- 
versy. That  Council  decided  that  as  there  were  two  natures  in 
Christ,  there  were  of  necessity  two  wills.  The  new  theory  in  assert- 
ing the  oneness  of  Christ's  nature,  denies  that  He  had  two  wills. 
The  acts,  emotions,  and  sufferings  of  his  earthly  life,  were  the  acts, 
emotions,  and  sufferings  of  the  Logos.  So  far  as  Christian  interest 
in  the  doctrine  is  concerned,  it  was  to  get  at  this  conclusion  the 
theory  was  adopted  if  not  devised.  It  was  to  explain  how  that 
more  than  human  value  belongs  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and 
more  than  human  efficacy  to  his  life,  that  so  many  Christian  men 
n'ere  led  to  embrace  the  new  doctrine.  The  Church  doctrine, 
hoM'ever,  does  not  consider  eitlier  the  sufferings  or  the  life  of  Christ 
as  those  of  a  mere  man.  He  was  a  divine  person,  God  manifest  in 
the  flesh ;  and  his  sufferings  and  life  were  those  of  that  person. 

1   The  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  p.  378. 


§9.]  MODERN   FORMS   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  439 

Christians  can  say,  and  always  have  said,  with  an  intelh'gent  and 
cordial  faith,  that  God  purchased  the  Church  with  his  blood.  It 
was  because  the  person  who  died  was  possessed  of  an  Eternal  Spirit 
that  his  blood  cleanses  from  all  sin. 

2.  The  arguments  from  Scripture  in  support  of  the  theory  are 
for  the  most  part  founded  on  the  neglect  of  the  principle  so  often 
referred  to,  that  anything  can  be  predicated  of  the  person  of  Christ 
that  can  be  predicated  either  of  his  human  or  of  his  divine  nature. 
That  the  one  person  is  said  to  be  born  and  to  suffer  and  die,  no 
more  proves  that  the  Logos  as  such  was  born  and  suffered  and 
died,  than  saying  of  a  man  that  he  is  sick  or  wounded  proves  that 
his  soul  is  diseased  or  injured.  The  same  remark,  of  course,  applies 
to  the  exaltation  and  dominion  of  the  risen  Redeemer.  It  is  the 
one  person  who  is  the  object  of  the  worship  of  all  created  intelli- 
gences, and  to  whom  their  obedience  is  due  ;  but  this  does  not 
prove  that  Christ's  human  nature  is  possessed  of  divine  attributes. 
Indeed,  according  to  the  modern  doctrine  of  Kenosis,  He  has  no 
human  nature,  as  already  proved. 

3.  The  theory  in  question  is  inconsistent  with  the  clear  doctrine 
both  of  revealed  and  natural  relio-ion  concernino-  the  nature  of  God. 
He  is  a  Spirit  infinite,  eternal,  and  immutable.  Any  theory,  there- 
fore, which  assumes  that  God  lays  aside  his  omnipotence,  omnis- 
cience, and  omnipresence,  and  becomes  as  feeble,  ignorant,  and 
circumscribed  as  an  infant,  contradicts  the  first  principle  of  all 
religion,  and,  if  it  be  pardonable  to  say  so,  shocks  the  common 
sense  of  men. 

4.  Instead  of  removing  any  diflRculties  attending  the  doctrine  of 
the  incarnation,  it  greatly  increases  them.  According  to  Dorner's 
view  we  are  called  upon  to  believe  that  a  human  soul  receives 
gradually  increasing  measures  of  the  divine  fulness,  until  at  last  it 
becomes  infinite.  This  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  it  ceases  to  exist. 
It  is  only  on  the  assumption  that  Dorner,  when  he  says  that  the 
essential  nature  of  God  is  love,  and  that  the  communication  of  the 
Godhead  is  the  communication  of  the  fulness  of  the  divine  love, 
means  that  God  is  purely  ethical,  an  attribute,  but  not  a  substance, 
that  we  can  attach  any  definite  meaning  to  his  doctrine.  Accord- 
ing to  Ebrard  we  are  required  to  believe  that  the  one  divine  and 
infinite  substance  of  the  Logos  was  finite  and  infinite  ;  conscious 
and  unconscious  ;  omnipresent,  and  confined  within  narrow  limits 
in  space  ;  and  that  it  was  active  in  the  exercise  of  omnipotence,  and 
as  feeble  as  an  infant  at  one  and  the  same  time.  According  to  the 
more  common  view  of  the  subject,  we  are  called  upon  to  believe 


440       PART  m.   Ch.  m.  — the  person  of  christ. 

tliat  the  infinite  God,  in  the  person  of  his  Son,  can  become  ignorant 
and  feeble,  and  then  omniscient  and  abnighty ;  that  He  can  cease 
to  be  God,  and  then  again  become  God.  Gess  says  tliat  God  is  not 
omnipotent  unless  He  has  power  over  Himself,  power,  that  is,  to 
cease  to  be  God.  If  this  be  true  of  the  Son  it  must  be  true  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Spirit ;  that  is,  it  must  be  true  that  the  Triune 
Jehovah  can  annihilate  Himself.     And,  then,  what  follows  ? 

5.  This  doctrine  destroys  the  humanity  of  Christ.  He  is  not 
and  never  was  a  man.  He  never  had  a  human  soul  or  a  human 
heart.  It  was  the  substance  of  the  Logos  invested  with  a  human 
body  that  was  born  of  the  Virgin,  and  not  a  human  soul.  A  being 
without  a  human  soul  is  not  a  man.  The  Saviour  which  this  theory 
offers  us  is  the  Infinite  God  with  a  spiritual  body.  In  thus  exalting 
the  humanity  of  Christ  to  infinitude  it  is  dissipated  and  lost. 

Schleiermacher. 

The  prevalent  Christology  among  a  numerous  and  distinguished 
class  of  modern  theologians,  though  not  professedly  pantheistic,  is 
nevertheless  founded  on  the  assumption  of  the  essential  oneness  of 
God  and  man.  This  class  includes  the  school  of  Schleiermacher  in 
all  its  modifications  not  only  in  Germany,  but  also  in  England  and 
America.  Schleiermacher  is  regarded  as  the  most  interesting  as 
well  as  the  most  influential  theologian  of  modern  times.  He  was 
not  and  could  not  be  self-consistent,  as  he  attempted  the  reconcilia- 
tion of  contradictory  doctrines.  There  are  three  things  in  his  ante- 
cedents and  circumstances  necessary  to  be  considered,  in  order  to 
any  just  appreciation  of  the  man  or  of  his  system.  First,  he  passed 
the  early  part  of  his  life  among  the  Moravians,  and  imbibed  some- 
thing of  their  spirit,  and  especially  of  their  reverence  for  Christ, 
who  to  the  Moravians  is  almost  the  exclusive  object  of  worship. 
This  reverence  for  Christ,  Schleiermacher  retained  all  his  life.  In 
one  of  the  discourses  pronounced  on  the  occasion  of  his  death,  it 
was  said,  "  He  gave  up  everything  that  he  might  save  Christ." 
His  philosophy,  his  historical  criticism,  everything,  he  was  willing  to 
make  bend  to  the  great  aim  of  preserving  to  himself  that  cherished 
object  of  reverence  and  love.^     Secondly,  his  academic  culture  led 

1  When  in  Berlin  the  writer  often  attended  Schleiermacher's  church.  The  hymns  to  be 
sung  were  printed  on  slips  of  paper  and  distributed  at  the  doors.  They  were  always  evan- 
gelical and  spiritual  in  an  eminent  degree,  filled  with  praise  and  gratitude  to  our  Redeemer. 
Tholuck  said  that  Schleiermacher,  when  sitting  in  the  evening  with  his  family,  would 
often  say,  "Hush,  children;  let  us  sing  a  hymn  of  praise  to  Christ."  Can  we  doubt  that 
he  is  singing  tliose  praises  now?  To  whomsoever  Christ  is  God,  St.  John  assures  us, 
Christ  is  a  Saviour. 


§9.]  MODERN   FORMS   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  441 

him  to  adopt  a  philosophical  system  whose  principles  and  tendencies 
were  decidedly  pantheistic.  And,  thirdly,  he  succumbed  to  the 
attacks  which  rationalistic  criticism  had  made  acjainst  faith  in  the 
Bible,  He  could  not  receive  it  as  a  supernatural  revelation  from 
God.  He  did  not  regard  it  as  containino;  doctrines  which  we  are 
bound  to  believe  on  the  authority  of  the  sacred  writers.  Deprived, 
therefore,  of  the  historical  Christ,  or  at  least  deprived  of  the  ordi- 
nary historical  basis  for  faith  in  Christ,  he  determined  to  construct  a 
Christology  and  a  whole  system  of  Christian  theology  from  within  ; 
to  weave  it  out  of  the  materials  furnished  by  his  own  religious 
consciousness.  He  said  to  the  Rationalists  that  they  might  expunge 
what  they  pleased  from  the  evangelical  records  ;  they  might  demol- 
ish the  whole  edifice  of  Church  theology,  he  had  a  Christ  and  a 
Christianity  in  his  own  bosom.  In  the  prosecution  of  the  novel 
and  difficult  task  of  constructing  a  system  of  Christian  theology  out 
of  the  facts  of  Christian  experience,  he  designed  to  secure  for  it  a 
position  unassailable  by  philosophy.  Philosophy  being  a  matter  of 
knowledge,  and  religion  a  matter  of  feeling,  the  two  belonged  to 
distinct  spheres,  and  therefore  there  need  be  no  collision  between 
them. 

Schleiermacher'' s  Christology. 

He  assumed,  (1.)  That  religion  in  general,  and  Christianity  in 
particular,  was  not  a  doctrine  or  system  of  doctrine  ;  not  a  cultus, 
or  a  discipline ;  but  a  life,  an  inward  spiritual  power  or  force. 
(2.)  That  the  true  Christian  is  conscious  of  being  the  recipient  of 
this  new  life.  (3.)  That  he  knows  that  it  did  not  originate  in 
himself,  nor  in  the  Church  to  which  he  belongs,  because  humanity 
neither  in  the  individual  nor  in  any  of  its  organizations  is  capable 
of  producing  what  is  specifically  new  and  higher  and  better  than 
itself.  (4.)  This  necessitates  the  assumption  of  a  source,  or 
author  of  this  life,  outside  of  the  race  of  ordinary  men  or  of  hu- 
manity in  its  regular  development.  (5.)  Hence  he  assumed  the 
actual  historical  existence  of  a  new,  sinless,  and  absolutely  perfect 
man  by  a  new  creative  act.  (6.)  That  man  was  Christ,  from  whom 
every  Christian  is  conscious  that  he  derives  the  new  life  of  which 
he  is  the  subject.  (7.)  Christ  is  the  Urhild,  or  Ideal  Man,  in  whom 
the  idea  of  humanity  is  fully  realized.  (8.)  He  is  nevertheless 
divine,  or  God  in  fashion  as  a  man,  because  man  is  the  modus 
existendi  of  God  on  the  earth.  In  ordinary  men,  even  in  Adam, 
God,  so  to  speak,  was  and  is  imperfectl}-  developed.  The  God- 
consciousness,  or  God  within,  is  overborne  by  our  world-con- 
sciousness, or  our  consciousness  as  determined  by  things  seen  and 


442        PART  m.     Ch.   ni.— the   person   of   CHRIST. 

temporal.  (9.)  In  Christ  this  was  not  the  case.  In  Him,  without 
struggle  or  opposition,  the  God-consciousness,  or  God  within,  con- 
trolled his  whole  inwai'd  and  outward  life.  (10.)  Christ's  pre- 
eminence over  other  men  consisted  in  his  absolute  sinlessness  and 
freedom  from  error.  Of  Him  it  is  to  be  said,  not  s[mp\y  potest  non 
peccare^  but  non  potest  peccare.  He  could  not  be  tempted  ;  for 
temptation  supposes  the  possibility  of  sin,  and  the  possibility  of  sin 
supposes  less  than  perfection.  (H-)  The  redeeming  work  and 
worth  of  Christ  consists  not  in  what  He  taught  or  in  what  He  did, 
but  in  what  He  was.  What  He  taught  and  what  He  did  may  be 
explained  in  different  ways,  or  even  explained  away,  but  what  He 
was,  remains,  and  is  the  one  all  important  fact.  (12.)  As  He  was 
thus  perfect,  thus  the  ideal  and  miraculously  produced  man,  He 
is  the  source  of  life  to  others.  He  awakens  the  dormant  God- 
consciousness  in  men,  and  gives  it  ascendency  over  the  sensibility, 
or  sensuous  element  of  our  nature,  so  that  believers  come  to  be,  in 
the  same  sense,  although  ever  in  a  less  degree,  what  Christ  was, 
God  manifest  in  the  flesh.  This  being  the  work  of  Christ,  and  this 
redeeming  process  being  due  to  what  He  was,  his  resurrection, 
ascension,  session  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  etc.,  etc.,  may  all  be 
dispensed  with.  They  may  be  admitted  on  historical  grounds,  good 
men  having  testified  to  them  as  facts,  but  they  have  no  religious 
import  or  power.  (13.)  The  new  life  of  which  Christ  is  the  author, 
which  in  this  country  is  commonly  denominated  "his  human  divine 
life,"  is  the  animating  and  constituting  principle  of  the  Church,  and 
it  is  by  union  with  the  Church  that  this  life  passes  over  to  individ- 
ual believers. 

Objections  to  this  Theory. 

This  is  a  meagre  outline  of  Schleiermacher's  Christology.  His 
doctrine  concerning  Christ  is  so  implicated  with  his  peculiar 
views  on  anthropology,  on  theology,  and  on  the  relation  of  God 
to  the  world,  that  it  can  neither  be  fully  presented  nor  properly 
appreciated  except  as  an  integral  part  of  his  whole  system. 

Gladly  as  Schleiermacher's  theory  was  embraced  as  a  refuge  by 
those  who  had  been  constrained  to  give  up  Christianity  as  a  doc- 

'ne,  and  great  as  have  been  its  popularity  and  influence,  it  was 
assailed  from  very  different  quarters  and  judged  from  many  differ- 
ent standpoints.  Here  it  can  only  be  viewed  from  the  position  of 
Christian  theology.  It  should  be  remembered  that  as  the  idealist 
does  not  feel  and  act  according  to  his  theory,  so  the  inward  life  of  a 
theologian  may  not  be  determined  by  his  speculative  doctrines. 
This  does  not  render  error  less  objectionable  or  less  dangerous.     It 


§9.]  MODERN  FORMS  OF  THE  DOCTRINE.  443 

is  nevertheless  a  fact,  and  enables  us  to  condemn  a  system  without 
wounding  our  cliarity  for  its  author.  Schleiermacher,  liowever, 
was  an  exceptional  case.  As  a  general  rule,  a  man's  faith  is  the 
expression  of  his  inward  life. 

1.  The  first  objection  to  Schleiermacher's  theory  is  that  it  is  not 
and  does  not  pretend  to  be  Biblical.  It  is  not  founded  upon  the 
objectiv^e  teaciiiiigs  of  the  Word  of  God.  It  assumes,  indeed,  that 
the  religious  experience  of  the  Apostles  and  early  Christians  was 
substantially  the  same,  and  therefore  involved  the  same  truths,  as 
the  experience  of  Christians  of  the  present  day.  Schleiermacher 
even  admits  that  their  experience  was  so  pure  and  distinctly  marked 
as  to  have  the  authority  of  a  standard  by  which  other  believers  are 
to  judge  of  their  own.  But  he  denies  that  the  interpretation  which 
they  gave  of  their  experience  has  normal  authority  for  us,  that  is,  he 
says  that  we  are  not  bound  to  believe  what  the  Apostles  believed. 
His  appeals  to  the  Scriptures  in  support  of  his  peculiar  doctrines 
are  extremely  rare,  and  merely  incidental.  He  professes  to  build 
up  a  system  independent  of  the  Bible,  founded  on  what  Christians 
now  find  in  the  contents  of  their  own  consciousness. 

2.  The  system  is  not  what  it  purports  to  be.  Schleiermacher 
professed  to  discard  speculation  from  the  province  of  religion.  He 
undertook  to  construct  a  theory  of  Christianity  with  which  philoso- 
phy should  have  nothing  to  do,  and  therefore  one  against  which  it 
could  have  no  right  to  object.  In  point  of  fact  his  system  is  a  mat- 
ter of  speculation  from  beginning  to  end.  It  could  never  have  ex- 
isted except  as  the  product  of  a  mind  imbued  with  the  principles  of 
German  philosophy.  It  has  no  coherence,  no  force,  and  indeed  no 
meaning,  unless  you  take  for  granted  the  correctness  of  his  views 
of  the  nature  of  God,  of  the  nature  of  man,  and  of  the  relation  of 
God  to  the  world.  This  objection  was  urged  against  his  system  by 
all  parties  in  Germany.  The  supernaturalists,  who  believed  in  the 
Bible,  charged  him  with  substituting  the  conclusions  of  his  own 
philosophy  for  the  dictates  of  Christian  consciousness.  And  the 
philosophers  said  he  was  true  neither  to  his  philosophy  nor  to  his 
religion.  He  changed  from  one  ground  to  the  other  just  as  it  suited 
his  purpose.  On  this  subject  Strauss^  says  that  Schleiermacher 
first  betrayed  philosophy  to  theology,  and  then  theology  to  philos- 
ophy ;  and  that  this  half-and-halfiiess  is  characteristic  of  his  whole 
position.  Although  this  was  said  in  a  spirit  of  unkindness,  it  is 
nevertheless  true.  His  speculative  opinions,  i.  e.,  the  conclusions 
at  which  he  arrives  by  the  way  of  speculation,  are  the  basis  of  his 

1  Dogmatik,  Tubingen,  1841,  vol.  ii.  p.  176. 


444         PART  m.   Ch.  III.  — the  person   of  CHRIST. 

whole  system  ;  and  therefore  those  who  adopt  it  receive  it  on  the 
authority  of  reason,  and  not  on  that  of  revelation.  It  is  a  philo- 
sophical theory  and  nothing  more.  This  will  become  apparent  as 
we  proceed. 

Founded  on  Pantheistic  Principles. 

3.  A  third  objection  is  that  the  system  is  essentially  pantheistic. 
This  is,  indeed,  an  ambiguous  term.  It  is  here  used,  however,  in 
its  ordinary  and  proper  sense.  It  is  not  meant  that  Schleiermacher 
held  that  the  universe  is  God,  or  God  the  universe,  but  that  he 
denied  any  proper  dualism  between  God  and  the  world,  and  between 
God  and  man.  He  held  such  views  of  God  as  were  inconsistent 
with  Theism  in  the  true  and  accepted  meaning  of  the  word.  That 
is,  he  did  not  admit  the  existence  of  a  personal,  extramundane 
God.  This  is  a  charge  brought  against  his  system  from  the  begin- 
ning, even  by  avowed  pantheists  themselves.  They  say  that  while 
denying  the  existence  of  a  personal  God  he  nevertheless  teaches 
doctrines  inconsistent  with  that  denial,  i.  e.,  with  what  they  regard 
as  the  true  view  of  the  relation  of  the  infinite  to  the  finite.  Theists 
brought  the  same  objection.  Dr.  Braniss  ^  says,  "  Die  Annahme 
eines  personlichen  Gottes  ist  in  diesem  System  unmoglich,"  i.  g., 
"  The  admission  of  a  personal  God  is,  in  this  system,  impossible."  ^ 
This  he  proves,  among  other  ways,  by  a  reference  to  what  Schleier- 
macher teaches  of  the  attributes  of  God,  which  with  him  are  not 
predicates  of  a  subject;  they  tell  us  nothing  as  to  what  God  is,  they 
are  only  forms  or  states  of  our  own  consciousness,  as  determined 
by  our  relation  to  the  system  of  things  in  their  causal  relation. 
Strauss,  from  another  standpoint,  says  that  Schleiermacher  could 
never  reconcile  himself  to  the  acknowledgment  of  a  personal,  extra- 
mundane  God.  Christ  was  the  only  God  he  had  ;  and  this,  alas  ! 
was  little  more  than  an  ideal  God ;  one  who  had  been  ;  but  whether 
He  still  is,  he  leaves  undetermined,  at  least  theoretically.  Baur 
presents  the  inconsistency  of  Schleiermacher  in  different  points  of 
view.  In  one  place  he  says  that  he  swung  to  and  fro  between  the 
idealism  of  Kant  and  Fichte,  and  the  pantheism  of  Spinoza  and 
Scheliing,  which  he  regarded  only  as  the  different  poles  of  the 
same  system  (derselben  Weltanschauung).^  Again  he  says  that 
the  essential  element  of  Sciileiermacher's  doctrine  of  God  is  the 
same  inunanence  of  God  in  the  world  that  Spinoza  taught.*  He 
indorses  the  criticism  of  Strauss,  that  all  the  main  positions  of  the 

1  Ueher  Schleiermacher^ s  Glnubenlehre,  ein  kritischer  Versuch,  p.  182. 

2  See  Gess,  Uebersicht  iiber  Schleiermacher'' s  System,  p.  185. 

8  Baur's  Lehre  von  der  Dreitinit/keit,  vol.  iii.  p.  842.  ■*  Ibid.  p.  850. 


§9.]  MODERN   FORMS   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  445 

first  part  of  Schleiermacher's  Glaubenslehre  are  intelligible  only 
when  translated  into  the  formulas  of  Spinoza,  whence  they  were 
derived ;  and  adds  that  he  made  no  greater  difference  between  God 
and  the  world  than  Spinoza  made  between  the  natura  naturans 
and  the  natura  riaturata}  Schleiermacher  wrote  at  the  time  when 
the  dispute  between  the  Rationalists  and  Supernaturalists  was  at  its 
height.  The  one  referred  all  events  to  natural  causes ;  the  other 
contended  for  the  possibility  of  miracles  and  of  a  supernatural 
revelation.  Both  parties  being  Theists,  the  Rationalists  had  no 
ground  to  stand  on.  For  if  the  existence  of  an  extramundane, 
personal  God,  the  creator  of  the  world,  be  admitted,  it  is  utterly 
unreasonable  to  deny  that  He  may  intervene  w^ith  his  immediate 
agency  in  the  sequence  of  events.  Schleiermacher  cut  the  knot 
by  denying  the  difference  between  the  natural  and  supernatural. 
There  is  really  no  extramundane  God,  no  other  sphere  of  divine 
activity  than  the  world,  and  no  other  law  of  his  action  than 
necessity. 2 

Involves  the  Rejection  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

4.  Schleiermacher's  system  ignores  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
With  him  God  in  the  world,  is  the  Father;  God  in  Christ,  the  Son  ; 
God  in  the  Church,  the  Spirit.  All  personal  preexistence  of  Christ 
is  thus  necessarily  excluded.  The  Scriptures  and  the  Church  teach 
that  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  who  was  with  the  Father  from  eter- 
nity ;  who  made  the  worlds ;  who  could  say,  "  Before  Abraham 
was  I  am,"  became  man,  being  born  of  a  woman,  yet  without  sin. 
This  Schleiermacher  denies.  There  was  no  Son  of  God,  before 
the  birth  of  Christ  in  Bethlehem.  Then  only,  Christ  began  to  be 
as  a  distinct  person  ;  He  had  no  preexistence  beyond  that  which  is 
common  to  all  men. 

5.  This  system  makes  Christ  a  mere  man.  He  is  constantly 
represented  as  the  Ideal  man,  Urbild,  a  perfect  man.  In  Him  the 
idea  of  humanity  is  said  to  be  fully  realized.  His  life  is  said  to  be 
one  ;  and  that  one  a  true  human  life.  There  was  in  Him  but  one 
nature,  and  that  nature  human.  Now  it  matters  little  that  with 
these  representations  Christ  is  said  to  be  divine,  and  his  life  a  divine 
life ;  for  this  is  said  on  the  ground  that  the  divine  is  human,  and 
the  human  divine.     ,God  and  man  are  one.     The  difference  be- 

1  Baur's  Lehre  von  der  Dreieiniglceit,  vol.  Hi.  p.  851. 

2  See  Baur,  p.  858,  who  quotes  Zeller  (  Theol.  Jahrb.  Bd.  1,  H.  2,  S.  285)  as  saying  that 
these  principles,  which  appear  everywhere  in  Schleiermacher's  Dogmatik,  contain  the  whole 
secret  of  its  Spinozism. 


446         PART  III.     Ch.   III.  — the  person   OF   CHRIST. 

tween  Christ  and  other  men  is  simply  one  of  degree.  He  is  per- 
fect, we  are  imperfect.  He  is,  as  Baur  said,  simply  primus  inter 
pares.  Christ  is  the  Urbild  or  archetypal  man.  But  "  the  actu- 
ality of  the  archetypal  does  not  go  beyond  our  nature."^  Even 
in  the  modified  form  in  which  his  doctrine  has  been  adopted  in  this 
country,  this  feature  of  the  system  has  been  retained.  Dr.  Nevin 
in  his  "  Mystical  Presence  "  is  abundant  in  his  assertion  of  the 
simple  humanity  of  Christ.  He  says  He  had  not  one  life  of  the 
body  and  another  of  the  soul  ;  nor  one  life  of  his  humanity  and 
another  of  his  divinity.  It  is  one  life  throughout,  and  it  "  is  in  aU 
respects  a  true  human  life."^  "Christ  is  the  archetypal  man  in 
whom  the  true  idea  of  humanity  is  brought  to  view."  He  "  is  the 
ideal  man."  Our  nature  is  said  to  be  complete  only  in  Him.  This 
also  is  the  staple  of  the  "  Mercersburg  Review  "  in  all  its  articles 
relating  either  to  Anthropology  or  Soteriology.  It  is  everywhere 
assumed  that  God  and  man  are  one  ;  that  divinity  is  the  completed 
development  of  humanity.  "  The  glorification  of  Christ  was  the 
full  advancement  of  our  human  nature  itself  to  the  power  of  a 
divine  life."  There  is  nothino;  in  Christ  which  does  not  belong  to 
humanity.  Steudel  therefore  says  of  the  Christology  of  Schleiei*- 
macher  that  it  makes  Christ  only  "  a  finished  man."  Knapp  says, 
that  he  deifies  the  human  and  renders  human  the  divine.^  Dorner 
says,  "  He  believed  the  perfect  being  of  God  to  be  in  Christ ;  and 
for  this  reason  regarded  Him  as  the  complete  man.  And  so,  vice 
versa,  because  He  is  the  complete  man,  the  consciousness  of  God 
has  become  a  being  of  God  in  Him."  *  That  is,  because  He  is  a 
perfect  man.  He  is  God.  And  Strauss  says,  that  according  to 
Schleiermacher  the  creation  of  man  imperfect  in  Adam  was  com- 
pleted in  Christ ;  and  as  Christ  did  not  assume  a  true  body  and  a 
reasonable  soul,  but  generic  humanity,  human  nature  as  a  generic 
life  is  raised  to  the  power  of  divinity,  not  in  Him  only  but  also  in 
the  Church.  The  incarnation  of  God  is  not  a  unique  manifestation 
in  the  flesh,  in  the  person  of  Christ,  appearing  on  earth  for  thirty- 
three  years  and  then  transferred  to  heaven.  This,  it  is  said,  would 
have  been  only  "  a  sublime  avatar,  fantastically  paraded  thus  long 
before  men,"  without  any  further  effect.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the 
introduction  of  the  life  of  God  into  humanity  rendering  it  divine. 
It  is  natural  that  those  who  thus  deify  themselves,  should  look 
upon  those  who  regard   themselves  as  "  worms   of  the  dust,"  as 

1  Dorner's  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  p.  .301. 

2  The  Mystical  Presence,  Philadelphia,  1846,  p.  167. 

8  Gess's  Uebersicht  iiber  Schleiernutchers  System,  p.  225. 
*  Dorner,  ut  supra,  ii.  vol.  iii.  p.  194. 


§  9.]        MODERN  FORMS  OF  THE  DOCTRINE.       447 

very  poor  creatures.^  The  objection,  however,  to  this  system  now 
in  hand  is  not  so  much  that  it  deifies  man,  as  that  it  makes  Christ 
nothing  more  than  an  ideal  man.  It  is  therefoi*e  utterly  at  variance 
with  the  teachings  of  Scripture,  the  fiiith  of  the  Church,  and  the 
intimate  convictions  of  the  people  of  God. 

Schleiermacher' s  Anthropology. 

6.  As  the  system  under  consideration  is  unscriptural  in  what  it 
teaches  concerning  the  nature  of  God,  and  the  person  of  Christ,  it 
is  no  less  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  in  what  it  teaches  concerning 
man.  Indeed,  the  theology  and  anthropology  of  the  system  are 
so  related  that  they  cannot  be  separately  held.  According  to  the 
Bible  and  the  common  faith  both  of  the  Church  and  of  the  world, 
man  is  a  being  created  by  the  word  of  God's  power,  consisting  of 
a  material  body  and  an  immaterial  soul.  There  are,  therefore,  in 
the  constitution  of  his  person,  two  distinct  subjects  or  substances, 
each  with  its  own  properties  ;  so  that  although  intimately  united 
in  the  present  state  of  being,  the  soul  is  capable  of  conscious  exist- 
ence and  activity,  out  of  the  body,  or  separated  from  it.  The  soul 
of  man  is  therefore  a  distinct  individual  subsistence,  and  not  the 
form,  or  modus  existendi  of  a  general  life.  According  to  Schleier- 
macher, "  Man  as  such,  or  in  himself,  is  the  knowing  (das  Erken- 
nen)  of  the  earth  in  its  eternal  substance  (Seyn)  and  in  its  ever 
changing  development.  Or  the  Spirit  (der  Geist,  God)  in  the  way 
or  form  in  which  it  comes  to  self-consciousness  in  our  earth."  Der 
Mensch  an  sich  ist  das  Erkennen  der  Erde  in  Seinem  ewigen  Seyn 
und  in  seinem  immer  wechselnden  Werden  :  oder  der  Geist,  der 
nach  Art  und  Weise  unserer  Erde  zum  Selbstbewusstseyn  sich 
gestaltet.2  gy  the  Mercersburg  writers  the  idea  is  set  forth  in 
rather  different  terms  but  substantially  to  the  same  effect.^  Thus 
it  is  said,  "  The  world  in  its  lower  view  is  not  simply  the  outward 
theatre  or  stage  on  which  man  is  set  to  act  his  part  as  a  candidate 
for  heaven.  In  the  widest  of  its  different  forms  of  existence,  it  is 
pervaded  throughout  with  the  power  of  a  single  life,  which  comes 
ultimately  to  Its  full  sense  and  force  only  in  the  human  person." 
And  *  "  The  world  is  an  organic  whole  which  completes  itself  in 

1  At  a  session  of  the  Academic  Senate  of  the  University  of  Berlin,  Marheinecl^e  called 
Neander  a  blockhead,  and  asked  him,  What  right  had  he  to  an  opinion  on  any  philosophi- 
cal question?     Neander,  on  the  other  hand,  said  that  Marheinecke's  doctrine,  Hegelianism,  - 
was  to  liim  ein  Greiiel,  a  disgusting  horror.     And  no  wonder,  for  a  doctrine  which  makes 
men  tlie  liighest  existence  form  of  God,  is  enough  to  shock  even  Satan. 

■-2  Dorner,  first  edition,  p.  488. 

3  In  tiie  Mfvci^rsbury  Jitvi^w,  1850,  p.  550. 

■*  Page  7  of  same  volume. 


448         PART  III.     Ch.   m.  — the   person   of   CHRIST. 

man  ;  and  humanity  is  regarded  throughout  as  a  single  grand  fact 
which  is  brought  to  pass,  not  at  once,  but  in  the  way  of  liistory, 
unfolding  always  more  its  true  interior  sense,  and  reaching  on  to 
its  final  consummation."  Again,  "  It  is  a  universal  property  of 
life  to  unfold  itself  from  within,  by  a  self-organizing  power,  towards 
a  certain  end,  which  end  is  its  own  realization,  or  in  other  words, 
the  actual  exhibition  and  actualization  in  outward  form  of  all  the 
elements,  functions,  powers,  and  capacities  which  potentially  it  in- 
•cludes.  Thus  life  may  be  said  to  be  all  at  its  commencement  which 
it  can  become  in  the  end." 

The  theory  is  that  there  is  an  infinite,  absolute,  and  universal 
something,  spirit,  life,  life-power,  substance,  God,  Urwesen,  or 
whatever  it  may  be  called,  which  develops  itself  by  an  inward 
force,  in  all  the  forms  of  actual  existence.  Of  these  forms  man  is 
the  highest.  This  development  is  by  a  necessary  process,  as  much 
so  as  the  growth  of  a  plant  or  of  an  animal.  The  stem  of  the  tree, 
its  branches,  foliage,  and  fruit,  are  not  formed  by  sudden,  creative 
acts,  accomplishing  the  effect,  by  way  of  miracle.  All  is  regular, 
a  law-work,  an  uninterrupted  force  acting  according  to  its  internal 
nature.  So  in  the  self-evolution  of  the  spirit,  or  principle  of  life, 
there  is  no  room  for  special  intervention,  or  creative  acts.  All 
goes  on  in  the  way  of  history,  and  by  regular  organic  development. 
Here  there  is  a  fault  in  Schleiermacher's  doctrine.  He  admitted 
a  creative,  supernatural  act  at  the  creation.  And  as  the  quantum 
of  life,  or  spirit,  communicated  to  man  at  first  was  insufficient  to 
carry  on  his  development  to  perfection,  i.  e.,  until  it  realized,  or 
actualized  all  that  is  in  that  life  of  which  he  is  the  manifestation 
(i.  e.,  in  God),  there  was  a  necessity  for  a  new  creative  act,  by 
which  in  the  person  of  Christ,  a  perfect  man  was  produced.  From 
Him,  and  after  Him,  the  process  goes  on  naturally,  by  regular  de- 
velopment.^    The  life-power,  the  spirit,  is  quantitively  increased, 

1  Schleiermacher  (Ziveiles  Sendschreiben  zuLiicke;  Works,  edit.  Berlin,  1836,  first  part, 
vol.  ii.  p.  653),  says:  "  Where  the  supernatural  occurs  with  me,  it  is  always  a  first;  it  be- 
comes natural  as  a  second.  Thus  the  creation  is  supernatural,  but  afterwards  it  is  a  natural 
process  (Naturzusammenhang).  So  Christ  is  supernatural  as  to  his  beginning,  but  He  be- 
comes natural  as  a  simple  or  pure  human  person.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
of  the  Christian  Church."  In  like  manner  Dr.  Nevin  repeatedly  says,  "  The  supernatural 
has  become  natural."  This  inconsistency  in  Schleiermacher's  system,  this  collision  be- 
tween his  philosophy  and  his  theology  is  dwelt  upon  by  all  his  German  critics.  Thus 
Schwarz  (Geschichte  der  neuesten  Theologie,  p.  254).  says,  "  Schleiermacher  steht  in  seiner 
Ontologie  und  Kosmologie,  in  Dem,  was  er  iiber  das  Verhaltniss  Gottes  zur  Welt  in  seiner 
Dialektik  feststellt,  ganz  und  gar  auf  dem  Boden  einer  einheitlichen  und  zusammen- 
hiingenden  Weltanschauung.  Ebenso  in  der  Lehre  von  der  Schopfung  und  J'rhaltung  der 
Welt,  wie  sie  die  Dogmatik  ausfiihrt.  Gott  und  die  Welt  sind  untrennbare  Correlata;  das 
Verhilltniss  Gottes  zur  Welt  ist  ein  nothwendiges,  stetiges,  zusammenhangendes.  Fiir 
ausserordentliche  Actionen,  fur  ein  vereinzeltes  Handeln  Gottes  auf  die  Welt  ausserhalb  des 


§  9.]        MODERN  FORMS  OF  THE  DOCTRINE.       449 

and  henceforth  develops  itself  historically  in  the  form  of  the 
Church.  The  Church,  therefore,  consists  of  those  to  whom  this 
elevated  principle  of  life  has  been  communicated,  and  in  whom  it 
develops  itself  until  it  realizes  all  it  includes.  That  is,  until  the 
essential  oneness  of  God  and  man  is  in  the  Church  fully  realized. 

There  is  another  mode  of  representation  current  with  the  disci- 
ples of  Schleiermacher,  especially  in  this  country.  Its  advocates 
speak  of  humanity  as  a  generic  life.  They  define  man  to  be  the  man- 
ifestation of  this  generic  life  in  connection  with  a  special  corporeal 
organization,  by  which  it  is  individualized  and  becomes  personal. 
It  was  this  generic  humanity  which  sinned  in  Adam,  and  thence- 
forth was  corrupt  in  all  the  individual  men  in  whom  it  was  mani- 
fested. It  was  this  generic  humanity  that  Christ  assumed  into 
personal  union  with  his  divinity,  not  as  two  distinct  substances,  but 
so  united  as  to  become  one  generic  human  life.  This  purified  hu- 
manity now  develops  itself,  by  an  inward  force  in  the  Church, 
just  as  from  Adam  generic  humanity  was  developed  in  his  poster- 
ity. All  this,  however,  differs  only  in  words  from  Schleiermacher's 
simpler  and  more  philosophic  statement.  For  it  is  still  assumed  as 
the  fundamental  idea  of  the  gospel,  that  God  and  man  are  one. 
This  generic  humanity  is  only  a  form  of  the  life  of  God.  And  as 
to  its  sinning  in  Adam,  and  being  thenceforth  corrupt,  sin  and 
corruption  are  only  imperfect  development.  God,  the  universal 
life  principle,  as  Dr.  Nevin  calls  it,  so  variously  manifested  in  the 
different  existences  in  this  world,  is  imperfectly  or  insufficiently 
manifested  in  man  generally,  but  perfectly  in  Christ,  and  through 
Him  ultimately  in  like  perfection  in  his  people.  Christ,  therefore, 
according  to  Dorner,  is  a  universal  person.  He  comprises  in  Him- 
self the  whole  of  humanity.  All  that  is  separately  revealed  in 
others  is  summed  up  in  Him.  In  this  system  "Der  Mittelpunkt," 
says  Schwarz,  "christlicher  Wahrheit,  der  christologische  Kern  der 
ganzen  Dogmatik  ist  die  Goschel-Dorner'sche  monstrose  Vorstel- 
lung  von  der  Allpersonlichkeit  Christi,  die  ihm  als  dem  Urmen- 
schen  zukommt.     Es  ist  '  die  Zusammenfassung  des  ganzen  geglie- 

Naturgesetzes  Oder  gegen  dasselbe  ist  nirgends  ein  Ort Aber  —  es  ist  zuzugeben, — 

diese  die  philosophische  Griindanscbauung  b:ldeiide  Itnmanenz  wird  von  dem  Theologen 
Schleiermacher  nicht  Strang  innegehalten,  das  aus  derOntologie  und  Kosmologie  verbannte 
Wunder  dringt  durch  die  Christologie  wieder  ein.  Die  Person  Christi  in  ihrer  religios= 
sittlichen  Absolutheit  ist  ein  Wunder,  eine  Ansnahme  vom  Naturgesetz,  sie  stehet  einzig 
da.  Ihr  Eintreten  in  die  Menschheit  erfodert  frofz  aller  Anschliessungen  nach  riickwartz 
wie  nach  vorwiirtz  einen  besondern  gtittlichen  Anstoss,  sie  ist  aus  der  geschichtlichen  Ent- 
wickelung  nicht  hervorgegangen  und  nicht  zu  begreifen.  Und  dieser  iibernatiiriiche  An- 
stoss ist  es,  welcher,  so  selir  er  auch  wieder  in  die  NatUrlichkeit  einlenkt,  doch  mit  dem 
religios=moralischen  Wunder  auch  die  Miiglichkeit  der  daniit  zusammenhiingenden  phy- 
sischen  Wunder  offen  lasst  und  so  den  ganzen  Weltzusammenhang  durchbricht." 
VOL.  II.  29 


450        PART  m.    Ch.  III.  — the  person  of   CHRIST. 

derten  Systems  der  natiirlichen  Gaben  der  Menschheit.'"^  "  The 
middle  point  of  Christian  truth,  tlie  kernel  of  dogmatic  theology 
is  Goschel's  and  Dorner's  monstrous  idea  of  the  All-personality 
of  Christ  which  belongs  to  Him  as  the  Urmensch  or  archetypal 
man.  He  comprehends  within  Himself  all  the  diversified  forms  or 
systems  of  the  natural  gifts  of  mankind."  Goschel  and  Dorner, 
adds  Schwarz,  were  driven  to  this  view  because  they  conceded  to 
their  opponent  Strauss,  that  the  Absolute  could  only  reveal  itself 
in  the  totality  of  individuals  ;  and  therefore  as  the  Absolute  was  in 
Chx'ist,  he  must  embrace  all  individuals,  because  (the  Gattungs- 
begrift")  the  true  and  total  idea  of  humanity,  the  ideal  man,  or 
Urmensch,  was  revealed  in  Christ.  The  objection  is  constantly 
urged  by  his  German  critics,  as  Baur,  Strauss,  and  Schwarz,  that 
Schleiermacher  admits  that  the  Absolute  is  revealed  in  perfection 
in  the  totality  of  individuals,  and  yet  is  revealed  perfectly  in  Christ, 
which  according  to  Schleiermacher's  own  philosophy  they  pro- 
nounce to  be  a  contradiction  or  impossibility.''' 

The  design  of  the  preceding  paragraj)hs  is  simply  to  show  the 
unscriptural  character  of  Schleiermacher's  Christology  in  all  its 
modifications,  because  it  is  founded  on  a  view  of  the  nature  of  man 
entirely  at  variance  with  the  Word  of  God.  It  assumes  the  one- 
ness of  God  and  man.  It  takes  for  granted  that  fully  developed 
humanity  is  divine;  that  Christ  in  being  the  ideal,  or  perfect  man, 
is  God. 

Schleiermacher's  Theory  perverts  the  Plan  of  Salvation. 

7.  It  need  hardly  be  remarked  that  the  plan  of  salvation  accord- 
ing to  Schleiermacher's  doctrine  is  entirely  different  from  that  re- 
vealed in  the  Bible  and  cherished  by  the  Chui'ch  in  all  ages.  It 
is,  in  Germany  at  least,  regarded  as  a  rejection  of  the  Church 
system,  and  as  a  substitute  for  it,  and  only  in  some  of  its  forms  as 
a  reconciliation  of  the  two,  as  to  what  is  deemed  absolutely  essen- 
tial. The  system  in  all  its  forms  rejects  the  doctrines  of  atonement 
or  satisfaction  to  the  justice  of  God  ;  of  regeneration  and  sanctifica- 
tion  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  of  justification  as  a  judicial  or  forensic  act; 
of  faith  in  Christ,  as  a  trusting  to  what  He  has  done  for  us,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  what  He  does  in  us  ;  in  short,  of  all  the  great  dis- 
tinctive doctrines  not  merely  of  the  Reformation  but  of  the  Catholic 
faith.  By  many  of  the  followers  of  Schleiermacher  these  doctrines 
are  rejected  in  so  many  words  ;  by  others  the  terms  are  more  or 

1  Schwarz,  Geschtchte  der  neuesfen  Theologie,  p.  260. 

2  Baur's  Cht-istliche  Lehre  von  der  Veisolmung,  p.  621-624. 


§9.]       MODERN  FORMS  OF  THE  DOCTRINE.       451 

less  retained,  but  not  in  their  received  and  established  meaning. 
For  the  Scriptural  system  of  salvation,  another  is  substituted. 
Christ  saves  us  not  by  what  He  teaches,  or  by  what  He  does,  but 
by  what  He  is.  He  infuses  a  new  principle  of  life  into  the  Church 
and  into  the  world.  The  universal  Hfe  as  communicated  to,  or  re- 
vealed in  Adam,  has  been  struggling  on,  imperfectly  developed  in 
all  his  descendants.  In  Christ  a  new  influx  of  this  life  is  commu- 
nicated to,  or  infused  into  the  veins  of  humanity.  From  this  as  a 
new  starting  point,  humanity  enters  on  another  stage  of  develop- 
ment, which  is  to  issue  in  the  full  actualization  of  the  divine  life  in 
the  form  of  humanity.  As  from  Adam  human  nature  was  devel- 
oped from  within  by  an  inward  force  in  a  regular  historical  pro- 
cess ;  so  from  Christ,  there  is  the  same  historical  development  from 
within.  All  is  natural.  There  is  nothing  supernatural  but  the 
initial  point ;  the  first  impulse,  or  the  first  infusion  of  the  divine 
life.  There  is  no  place  in  the  system  for  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Indeed,  the  very  existence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  personal 
being  is  by  Schleiermacher  expressly  denied.  By  the  Spirit  he 
means  the  common  life  of  the  Church,  that  is,  the  divine  life,  or 
God  as  revealed  in  the  Church.  As  we  derive  from  Adam  a 
quantitively  deficient,  and  in  that  sense  corrupt,  nature,  and  have 
nothing  more  to  do  with  him  ;  so  from  Christ  we  receive  a  larger 
measure  of  life,  spirit,  or  divine  nature,  and  have  nothing  more  to 
do  with  Him.  His  whole  redeeming  work  is  in  the  new  leaven 
he  has  introduced  into  humanity,  which  diffuses  itself  in  the  way 
of  natural  development.  This,  as  Baur  says,  comes  after  all  to 
little  more  than  the  impression  which  his* character  has  made  on 
the  world.  He  draws  a  parallel  between  Schleiermacher  and  Kant, 
between  the  "  Glaubenslehre  "  of  the  former,  and  "  Die  Religion 
innerhalb  der  Grenzen  der  blossen  Vernunft "  of  the  latter  ;  the 
clear  rationalism  of  the  one  and  the  mystical  obscurity  of  the  other. 
Both  admit  that  there  is  a  good  and  a  bad  principle.  Both  say 
that  man's  redemption  consists  in  the  triumph  of  the  good  principle. 
Both  say  that  the  deliverance  from  evil  or  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion, is  a  purely  natural  process.  Both  refer  the  success  of  the 
struggle  to  the  influence  of  Christ.  The  one  says  that  He  imparts 
to  men  a  new  life,  the  other  says  that  He  awakens  the  dormant 
good  that  is  already  in  man's  nature.  Everything  admits  of  a  sim- 
ple and  of  a  mystical  explanation.^    In  every  great  epoch  some  one- 

1  The  writer  was  once  (iiltini^  with  Tholuck  in  a  public  garden,  when  the  latter  said,  "I 
turn  my  eyes  in  the  opposite  direction,  and  still  I  am  conscious  of  your  presence.  How  is 
that?"  The  reply  was,  "You  know  the  fact  that  I  am  here;  and  that  knowledge  pro- 
duces the  state  of  mind,  you  call  a  consciousness  of  my  presence."    Tholuck  good  naturedljr 


452         PART  III.     Ch.  III.  — the  person   OF   CHRIST. 

man  not  only  impresses  his  character  and  infuses  his  spirit  into  the 
men  of  his  generation,  but  also  transmits  his  influence  from  age  to 
age.  The  whole  body  of  Lutherans  are  what  they  arc  because 
Luther  was  what  he  was.  The  spirit  of  Ignatius  Loyola  is  just  as 
active  in  the  Jesuits  of  our  day  as  it  was  in  his  own  person.  The 
Scotch  are  what  they  are  because  of  John  Knox  ;  and  the  Wesley- 
ans  owe  not  only  their  doctrines  and  discipline  but  their  wdiole  ani- 
mus and  character  to  John  Wesley.  To  this  category  do  the  mer- 
ciless German  critics  of  Schleiermacher  reduce  his  theory  of  the 
redemption  of  man  by  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  a  matter  of  personal 
influence  like  that  of  other  great  men.  This  will  be  regarded  by 
his  disciples  as  a  most  degrading  and  unjust  view  of  his  doctrine. 
And  it  doubtless  is  unjust.  For  whatever  may  be  true  of  his  mere 
speculative  system,  he  unquestionably  in  his  heart  regarded  Christ 
as  infinitely  exalted  above  other  men,  and  as  the  proper  object  of 
adoration  and  trust. 

This  Vermittelungstheologie  (the  mediating-theology),  as  it  is 
called  in  Germany,  is  confessedly  an  attempt  to  combine  the  con- 
clusions of  modern  speculation  with  Christian  doctrine,  or  rather 
with  Christianity.  It  is  an  attempt  to  mix  incongruous  elements 
which  refuse  to  enter  into  combination.  The  modern  speculative 
philosophy  in  all  its  forms  insists  on  the  denial  of  all  real  dualism  ; 
God  and  the  world  are  correlata,  the  one  supposes  the  other;  with- 
out the  world  there  is  no  God ;  creation  is  the  self-evolution  or 
self-manifestation  of  God ;  and  is  therefore  necessary  and  eternal. 
God  can  no  more  be  without  the  world,  than  mind  without  thought. 
The  preservation,  progress,  and  consummation  of  the  world  is  by  a 
necessary  process  of  development,  as  in  all  the  forms  of  life.  There 
is  no  possibility  of  special  intervention,  on  the  part  of  God.  Mira- 
cles whether  spiritual  or  physical  are  an  absurdity  and  an  impossi- 
bility.^ So  is  any  agency  of  God  in  time,  or  otherwise  than  as  a 
general  life-power.  This  precludes  the  efficacy  of  prayer  except 
as  to  its  subjective  influence.  Schleiermacher  shared  in  this  horror 
of  the  supernatural,  and  this  rejection  of  all  miracles.  In  the  case 
of  Christ,  he  was  forced  to  admit  "a  new  creative  act."  But  he 
apologized  for  this  admission  by  representing  it  as  only  the  comple- 

rejoined,  "  0  how  stupid  that  is.  Don't  you  believe  that  there  is  an  influence  which  streams 
forth  from  me  to  you  and  from  you  to  me  ?  "  The  only  answer  was,  "  Perhaps  so."  Of  all 
the  genial,  lovely,  and  loving  men  whom  the  writer  in  the  course  of  a  long  life  has  met, 
Tholuck  stands  among  the  very  first.  The  writer  derived  more  good  from  him  than  from 
all  other  sources  combined  during  his  two  years  sojourn  in  Europe. 

1  "  Eigentliche  Mirakel  anzunehmen,  d.  h.  Unterbrechungen  oder  Aufhebungen  der 
Naturordnung,  dazu  wird  kein  philosophischer  Denker  sich  herablassen."  J.  H.  Fichte,  by 
Schwarz,  p.  319. 


§9.]  MODERN   FORMS    OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  453 

tion  of  the  original  act  of  creation,  and  by  saying  that  it  was  only 
for  a  moment,  and  that  all  thenceforth  was  natural. 

Schwarz,  himself  a  great  admirer,  although  not  a  disciple  of 
Schleiermacher,  characterizes  this  "  mediating  theology "  as  an 
utter  failure.  It  is  neither  one  thing  nor  the  other.  It  is  neither 
true  to  its  speculative  principles,  nor  true  to  Christianity.  It 
virtually  rejects  the  Church  system,  yet  endeavours  to  save  Chris- 
tianity by  adopting  at  least  its  phraseology.  Schwarz  says  it  is  a 
system  of  "  phrases ; "  which  endeavours  to  heal  the  wounds  of 
orthodoxy  by  words  which  seem  to  mean  much,  but  which  may  be 
made  to  mean  much  or  little  as  the  reader  pleases.  It  speaks  con- 
stantly of  Christianity  as  a  life,  as  the  life  of  God,  as  developing 
itself  organically  and  naturally,  not  by  supernatural  assistance,  but 
by  an  inward  life-power,  as  in  other  cases  of  organic  development. 
It  assumes  to  rise  to  the  conception  of  the  whole  world  as  an  or- 
ganism, in  which  God  is  one  of  the  factors ;  the  world  and  God 
differing  not  in  substance  or  life,  but  simply  in  functions.  It  con- 
cedes to  "  speculation  "  that  the  fundamental  truth  of  philosophy 
and  of  Christianity  is  the  oneness  of  God  and  man.  Man  is  God 
living  in  a  certain  form,  or  state  of  development.  While  "  the 
mediating  theology  "  concedes  all  this,  it  nevertheless  admits  of  a 
miraculous  or  supernatural  beginning  of  the  world  and  of  the  per- 
son of  Christ,  and  thus  gives  up  its  whole  philosophical  system. 
At  least  the  members  of  one  wing  of  Schleiermacher's  school  are 
thus  inconsistent;  those  of  the  other  are  more  true  to  their  princi- 
ples. 

As  Christian  theology  is  simply  the  exhibition  and  illustration 
of  the  facts  and  truths  of  the  Bible  in  their  due  relations  and  pro- 
portions, it  has  nothing  to  do  with  these  speculations.  The  "me- 
diating theology  "  does  not  pretend  to  be  founded  on  the  Bible.  It 
does  not,  at  least  in  Germany,  profess  allegiance  to  the  Church 
doctrine.  It  avowedly  gives  up  Christianity  as  a  doctrine  to  save 
it  as  a  life.  It  is  founded  on  "  speculation  "  and  not  upon  author- 
ity, whether  of  the  Scriptures  or  of  the  Church.  It  affords  there- 
fore no  other  and  no  firmer  foundation  for  our  faith  and  hope,  than 
any  other  philosophical  system  ;  and  that,  as  all  history  proves,  is  a 
foundation  of  quick-sand,  shifting  and  sinking  from  month  to 
month  and  even  from  day  to  day.  Schleiermacher  has  been  dead 
little  more  than  thirty  years,  and  already  there  are  eight  or  ten. 
different  classes  of  his  general  disciples  who  differ  from  each  other 
almost  as  much  as  from  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation.  Twesten 
and    Ullmann,   Liebner  and    Thomasius,    Lange    and    Alexander 


454         PART  in.     Ch.   IIL  — the   person   of   CHRIST. 

Schweizer,  are  wide  apart,  each  having  his  own  philosophical  solvent 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  and  each  producing  a  different  re- 
siduum. 

The  simple,  sublime,  and  saving  Christology  of  the  Bible  and 
of  the  Church  universal  is :  "  That  the  eternal  Son  of  God  be- 
came man  by  taking  to  Himself  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul, 
and  so  was  and  continues  to  be  God  and  man  in  two  distinct  na- 
tures and  one  person  forever." 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  MEDIATORIAL  WORK  OF  CHRIST, 

§  1.   Christ  the  only  Mediator. 

According  to  the  Scriptures  the  incarnation  of  the  etex'nal  Son 
of  God  was  not  a  necessary  event  arising  out  of  the  nature  of  God. 
It  was  not  the  cuhninating  point  in  the  development  of  humanity. 
It  was  an  act  of  voluntary  humiliation.  God  gave  his  Son  for 
the  redemption  of  man.  He  came  into  the  world  to  save  his  peo- 
ple from  their  sins  ;  to  seek  and  save  those  who  are  lost.  He 
took  part  in  flesh  and  blood  in  order,  by  death,  to  destroy  him  wlio 
had  the  power  of  death,  that  is  the  devil,  and  to  deliver  those* 
who  through  fear  of  death  (i.  e.,  through  apprehension  of  the  wrath 
of  God),  were  all  their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage.  He  died  the 
just  for  the  unjust  that  He  might  bring  us  near  to  God.  Such  is 
the  constant  representation  of  the  Scriptures.  The  doctrine  of  the 
modern  speculative  theology,  that  the  incarnation  would  have  oc- 
curred though  man  had  not  sinned,  is,  therefore,  contrary  to  the 
plainest  teachings  of  the  Bible.  Assuming,  however,  that  fallen 
men  were  to  be  redeemed,  then  the  incarnation  was  a  necessity. 
There  was  no  other  way  by  which  that  end  could  be  accomplished. 
This  is  clearly  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  The  name  of  Christ  is 
the  only  name  whereby  men  can  be  saved.  If  righteousness  could 
have  been  attained  in  any  other  way,  Christ,  says  the  Apostle,  is 
dead  in  vain.  (Galatians  ii.  21.)  If  the  law  (any  institution  or 
device)  could  have  given  life,  verily  righteousness  should  have  been 
by  the  law.     (Galatians  iii.  21.) 

As  the  design  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  was  to  rec- 
oncile us  unto  God,  and  as  reconciliation  of  parties  at  variance  is 
a  work  of  mediation,  Christ  is  called  our  mediator.  As  reconcilia- 
tion is  sometimes  effected  by  mere  intercession,  or  negotiation,  the 
person  who  thus  effectually  intercedes  may  be  called  a  mediator. 
But  where  reconciliation  involves  the  necessity  of  satisfaction  for  sin 
as  committed  against  God,  then  he  only  is  a  mediator  who  makes 
an  atonement  for  sin.  As  this  was  done,  and  could  be  done  by 
Christ  alone,  it  follows  that  He  only  is  the  mediator  between  God 


456     PART  III.     Ch.  IV.  —  mediatorial  WORK   OF  CHRIST. 

and  man.  He  is  our  peace-maker,  who  reconciles  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles unto  God  in  one  body  by  the  cross.  (Ephesians  ii.  16.)  To 
us,  therefore,  there  is  one  mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  man 
Christ  Jesus.     (1  Timothy  ii.  5.) 

The  Romish  Church  regards  priests,  and  saints,  and  angels,  and 
especially  the  Virgin  Mary,  as  mediators,  not  only  in  the  sense  of 
intercessors,  but  as  peace-makers  without  whose  intervention  rec- 
onciliation with  God  cannot  be  attained.  This  arises  from  two 
erroneous  principles  involved  in  the  theology  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  The  first  concerns  the  office  of  the  priesthood.  Romanists 
teach  that  the  benefits  of  redemption  can  be  obtained  only  through 
the  intervention  of  the  priests.  Those  benefits  flow  through  the 
sacraments.  The  sacraments  to  be  available  must  be  administered 
by  men  canonically  ordained.  The  priests  offer  sacrifices  and 
grant  absolution.  They  are  as  truly  mediators,  although  in  a  sub- 
ordinate station,  as  Christ  himself.  No  man  can  come  to  God  ex- 
cept through  them.  And  this  is  the  main  idea  in  mediation  in  the 
Scriptural  sense  of  the  word. 

The  other  principle  is  involved  in  the  doctrine  of  merit  as  held 
by  Romanists.  According  to  them,  good  works  done  after  regen- 
eration have  real  merit  in  the  sight  of  God.  It  is  possible  for  the 
people  of  God  not  only  to  acquire  a  degree  of  merit  sufficient  for 
their  own  salvation,  but  more  than  suffices  for  themselves.  This, 
on  the  principle  of  the  communion  of  saints,  may  be  made  available 
for  others.  The  saints,  therefore,  are  appealed  to,  to  plead  their 
own  merits  before  the  throne  of  God  as  the  ground  of  the  pardon 
or  deliverance  of  those  for  whom  they  intercede.  This  according 
to  the  Scriptures  is  the  peculiar  work  of  Christ  as  our  mediator  ; 
assigning  it  to  the  saints,  therefore,  constitutes  them  mediators. 
As  the  Christian  minister  is  not  a  priest,  and  as  no  man  has  any 
merit  in  the  sight  of  God,  much  less  a  superabundance  thereof,  the 
-whole  foundation  of  this  Romish  doctrine  is  done  away.  Christ  is 
our  only  mediator,  not  merely  because  the  Scriptures  so  teach,  but 
also  because  He  only  can  and  does  accomplish  what  is  necessary 
for  our  reconciliation  to  God ;  and  He  only  has  the  personal  quali- 
fications for  the  work. 

§  2.   Qualifications  for  the  Work. 

What    those    qualifications    are    the    Scriptures   clearly   teach. 

1.  He  must  be  a  man.  The  Apostle  assigns  as  the  reason  why 
Christ  assumed  our  nature  and  not  the  nature  of  angels,  that  He 
came  to  redeem  us.      (Hebrews  ii.  14-16.)     It  was  necessary  that 


§2.]  QUALIFICATIONS  FOR  THE  WORK.  457 

He  should  be  made  under  the  law  which  we  had  broken ;  that  He 
should  fulfil  all  righteousness ;  that  He  should  suffer  and  die  ;  that 
He  should  be  able  to  sympathize  in  all  the  infirmities  of  his  people, 
and  that  He  should  be  united  to  them  in  a  common  nature.  He 
who  sanctifies  (purifies  from  sin  both  as  guilt  and  as  pollution)  and 
those  who  are  sanctified  are  and  must  be  of  one  nature.  Therefore 
as  the  children  were  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  He  also  took  part 
of  the  same.      (Hebrews  ii.  11-14.) 

2.  The  Mediator  between  God  and  man  must  be  sinless.  Under 
the  law  the  victim  offered  on  the  altar  must  be  without  blemish. 
Christ,  who  was  to  offer  Himself  unto  God  as  a  sacrifice  for  the 
sins  of  the  world,  must  be  Himself  free  from  sin.  The  High 
Priest,  therefore,  who  becomes  us.  He  whom  our  necessities  de- 
mand, must  be  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  and  separate  from  sinners. 
(Hebrews  vii.  26.)  He  was,  therefore,  "  without  sin."  (Hebrews 
iv.  15  ;  1  Peter  ii.  22.)  A  sinful  Saviour  from  sin  is  an  impos- 
sibility. He  could  not  have  access  to  God.  He  could  not  be  a 
sacrifice  for  sins ;  and  He  could  not  be  the  source  of  holiness  and 
eternal  life  to  his  people.  This  sinlessness  of  our  Lord,  how- 
ever, does  not  amount  to  absolute  impeccability.  It  was  not  a  non 
potest  peccare.  If  He  was  a  true  man  He  must  hare  been  ca- 
pable of  sinning.  That  He  did  not  sin  under  the  greatest  provo- 
cation ;  that  when  He  was  reviled  He  blessed ;  when  He  suf- 
fered He  threatened  not ;  that  He  was  dumb,  as  a  sheep  before 
its  shearers,  is  held  up  to  us  as  an  example.  Temptation  implies 
the  possibility  of  sin.  If  from  the  constitution  of  his  person  it  was 
impossible  for  Christ  to  sin,  then  his  temptation  was  unreal  and 
without  effect,  and  He  cannot  sympathize  with  his  people. 

3.  It  was  no  less  necessary  that  our  Mediator  should  be  a  divine 
person.  The  blood  of  no  mere  creature  could  take  away  sin.  It 
was  only  because  our  Lord  was  possessed  of  an  eternal  Spirit  that 
the  one  offering  of  Himself  has  forever  perfected  them  that  believe. 
None  but  a  divine  person  could  destroy  the  power  of  Satan  and  de- 
liver those  who  were  led  captive  by  him  at  his  will.  None  but  He 
who  had  life  in  Himself  could  be  the  source  of  life,  spiritual  and 
eternal,  to  his  people.  None  but  an  almighty  person  could  control 
all  events  to  the  final  consummation  of  the  plan  of  redemption,  and 
could  raise  the  dead;  and  infinite  wisdom  and  knowledge  are  requi- 
site in  Him  who  is  to  be  judge  of  all  men,  and  the  head  over  all  to 
his  Church.  None  but  one  in  whom  dwelt  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  could  be  the  object  as  well  as  the  source  of  the  religious 
life   of  all  the  redeemed. 


458    PART  III.     Ch.   IV. —MEDIATORIAL  WORK  OF  CHRIST. 

These  qualifications  for  the  office  of  mediator  between  God  and 
man  are  all  declared  in  the  Scriptures  to  be  essential ;  they  all 
met  in  Christ ;  and  they  all  were  demanded  by  the  nature  of  the 
work  which  He  came  to  perform. 

As  it  was  necessary  that  Christ  should  be  both  God  and  man  in 
two  distinct  natures  and  one  person,  in  order  to  effect  our  redemp- 
tion, it  follows  that  his  mediatorial  work,  which  includes  all  He  did 
and  is  still  doing  for  the  salvation  of  men,  is  the  work  not  of  his 
human  to  the  exclusion  of  his  divine  nature,  nor  of  the  latter  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  former.  It  is  the  woi'k  of  the  ©eav^pwjros,  of 
the  God- mail.  Of  the  acts  of  Christ,  as  already  remarked,  some 
are  purely  divine,  as  creation,  preservation,  etc.  ;  others  purely 
human,  ^.  e.,  those  which  the  ordinary  powers  of  man  are  not  only 
adequate  to  accomplish,  but  in  which  only  human  faculties  were 
exercised  ;  and,  thirdly,  those  which  are  mixed,  which  belong  to 
the  whole  person.  As  speaking  in  man  is  a  joint  exercise  of  the 
mind  and  of  the  body,  so  the  mediatorial  work  iu  Christ  is  the  joint 
work  of  his  divinity  and  humanity.  Each  nature  acts  agreeably  to 
its  own  laws.  When  a  man  speaks,  the  mind  and  body  concur  in 
the  production  of  the  effect,  each  according  to  its  nature.  So  when 
our  Lord  spake,  the  wisdom,  truth,  and  authority  with  M'hich  He 
spake  were  due  to  his  divinity  ;  the  human  form  of  the  thoughts 
and  their  articulation  were  what  they  were  in  virtue  of  the  func- 
tions of  iiis  human  nature.  So  with  all  his  redemptive  acts.  As 
the  mind  of  man  concurs  in  the  endurance  of  the  sufferings  of  the 
body  according  to  the  nature  of  mind,  so  the  divinity  of  Christ 
concurred  with  the  sufferings  of  his  human  nature  according  to  the 
nature  of  the  divinity. 

On  this  subject  the  schoolmen  made  the  following  distinctions  : 
"  (1.)  Est  6  ivepydv,  Agejis  sen  Principium  quod  agit,  quod  est  sup- 
positum  seu  persona  Christi.  (2.)  To  ivepy-qriKov  seu  Principium 
formale  quo  agit ;  illud  per  quod  agens,  seu  persona  Christi  opera- 
tur,  duas  scilicet  naturae,  quarum  unaquaeque  citra  ullum  confusi- 
onem  operatur.  (3.)  'Ei'tpycta  seu  operatio  qua?  pendet  a  principio 
quo,  et  naturam  sui  principil  refert,  ut  sit  divina,  si  princij)ium  quo 
sit  divina  natura,  humana  vero,  si  sit  humanitas.  (4.)  Eiepyjj/xa, 
seu  oLTTOTiXeafjia,  quod  pendet  a  principio  quod,  estque  opus  exter- 
num quod  mediationem  vocamus Ita  unum  est  agens  prin- 

cipale,  nim.  persona  Christi,  et  unum  dTroTcXccr/xa  seu  opus  mediato- 
rium  ;  sed  operatur  per  duas  naturas,  ut  duo  principia,  unde  fluunt 
duse  ei/epyet'at  seu  operatioues  ad  unum  illud  opus  concurrentes."  ^ 

1  Tiirrettin,  locus  xiv.  quajst.  ii.  3,  edit.  Edinburgh,  1847,  vol.  ii.  p.  3-35.      He  quotes 
from  Bamasc.  lib.  Ii.  4,  orth.  fid.  c.  13,  and  refers  to  Leo's  10th  Epistle  to  Flavian. 


§3.]  THE   THREEFOLD    OFFICE   OF   CHRIST.  459 

All  Christ's  acts  and  sufferings  in  the  execution  of  his  mediato- 
rial work  were,  therefore,  the  acts  and  sufferings  of  a  divine  person. 
It  was  the  Lord  of  glory  who  was  crucified ;  it  was  the  Son*  of 
God  who  poured  out  his  soul  unto  death.  That  this  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  Scriptures  is  plain,  (1.)  Because  they  attribute  the  efficacy 
and  power  of  his  acts,  the  truth  and  wisdom  of  his  words,  and  the 
value  of  his  sufferings  to  the  fact  that  they  were  the  acts,  words, 
and  sufferings  of  God  manifested  in  the  flesh.  They  are  predicated 
of  one  and  the  same  person  who  from  the  beginning  was  with  God 
and  was  God,  who  created  all  things  and  for  whom  all  things  were 
made  and  by  whom  all  things  consist.  (2.)  If  the  mediatorial 
work  of  Christ  belongs  to  his  human  nature  exclusively,  or,  in  other 
words,  if  He  is  our  mediator  only  as  man,  then  we  have  only  a 
human  Saviour,  and  all  the  glory,  power,  and  sufficiency  of  the 
Gospel  are  departed.  (3.)  From  the  nature  of  the  work.  The  re- 
demption of  fallen  men  is  a  work  for  which  only  a  divine  person  is 
competent.  The  prophetic  office  of  Christ  supposes  that  He  pos- 
sessed "all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge;"  his  sacerdotal 
office  required  the  dignity  of  the  Son  of  God  to  render  his  work 
available ;  and  none  but  a  divine  person  could  exercise  the  dominion 
with  which  Christ  as  mediator  is  intrusted.  Only  the  Eternal  Son 
could  deliver  us  from  the  bondage  of  Satan,  and  from  the  death  of 
sin,  or  raise  the  dead,  or  give  eternal  life,  or  conquer  all  his  and  our 
enemies.  We  need  a  Saviour  who  was  not  only  holy,  harmless, 
undefiled,  and  separate  from  sinners,  but  who  also  "  is  higher  than 
the  heavens." 

§  3.   The  Threefold  Office  of  Christ. 

It  has  long  been  customary  with  theologians  to  exhibit  the  medi- 
atorial work  of  Christ  under  the  heads  of  his  prophetic,  sacerdotal, 
and  kingly  offices.  To  this  division  and  classification  it  has  been 
objected  by  some  that  these  offices  are  not  distinct,  as  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  priests  as  well  as  of  the  prophets  to  teach ;  by  others, 
that  the  sacerdotal  office  of  Christ  was  identical  with  the  prophetic, 
that  his  redemption  was  effected  by  teaching.  This  method,  how- 
ever, has  not  only  the  sanction  of  established  usage  and  obvious 
convenience,  but  it  is  of  substantive  importance,  and  has  a  firm 
Scriptural  basis.  (1.)  In  the  Old  Testament  the  several  offices 
were  distinct.  The  prophet,  as  such,  was  not  a  priest;  and  the 
king  was  neither  priest  nor  prophet.  Two  of  these  offices  were  at 
times  united  in  the  same  person  under  the  theocracy,  as  Moses  was 
both  priest  and  prophet,  and  David  prophet  and  king.  Neverthe- 
less "the    offices  were    distinct.     (2.)    The    Messiah,   during   the 


460    PART  in.    Ch.  IV.  — mediatorial  work  of  CHRIST. 

theocracy  and  in  the  use  of  language  as  tlien  understood,  was 
predicted  as  prophet,  priest,  and  king.  Moses,  speaking  of  Christ, 
said,  "  The  Lord  thy  God  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a  prophet  from 
the  midst  of  thee,  of  thy  brethren,  like  unto  me."  It  was  abun- 
dantly taught  that  the  coming  deliverer  was  to  discharge  all  the 
duties  of  a  prophet  as  a  revealer  of  the  will  of  God.  He  was  to  be 
the  great  teacher  of  righteousness  :  a  light  to  lighten  the  Gentiles 
as  well  as  the  glory  of  his  people  Israel.  No  less  clearly  and  fre- 
quently was  it  declared  that  He  should  be  a  priest.  "  Thou  art  a 
priest  forever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedec."  He  was  to  be  a 
priest  upon  his  throne.  (Zechariah  vi.  13.)  He  was  to  bear  the 
sins  of  the  people,  and  make  intercession  for  transgressors.  His 
royal  office  is  rendered  so  prominent  in  the  Messianic  prophecies 
that  the  Jews  looked  for  Him  only  as  a  king.  He  was  to  reign 
over  all  nations.  Of  his  kingdom  there  was  to  be  no  end.  He 
was  to  be  the  Lord  of  lords  and  the  King  of  kings.  (3.)  In 
the  New  Testament  the  Redeemer,  in  assuming  the  office  of  the 
promised  Messiah,  presented  Him  to  the  people  as  their  prophet, 
priest,  and  king ;  and  those  who  received  Him  at  all  received 
Him  in  all  these  offices.  He  applied  to  Himself  all  the  prophe- 
cies relating  to  the  Messiah.  He  referred  to  Moses  as  predict- 
ing the  Messiah  as  a  prophet ;  to  David,  as  setting  Him  forth  as  a 
priest,  and  to  Daniel's  prophecies  of  the  kingdom  which  He  came 
to  establish.  The  Apostles  received  Him  as  the  teacher  sent  from 
God  to  reveal  the  plan  of  salvation  and  to  unfold  the  future  destiny 
of  the  Church.  In  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
it  is  said,  "  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners 
spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these 
last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son."  In  that  Epistle  the  priest- 
hood of  Christ  is  elaborately  set  forth,  and  its  superiority  in  every 
respect  to  the  priesthood  of  the  old  economy  strenuously  insisted 
upon.  In  like  manner  the  New  Testament  is  full  of  instruction 
concerning  the  grounds,  the  nature,  the  extent,  and  the  duration 
of  his  kingdom.  He  is  constantly  designated  as  Lord,  as  our  abso- 
lute proprietor  and  sovereign.  Nothing,  therefore,  can  be  plainer 
than  that  as  the  Old  Testament  prophets  predicted  that  the  Mes- 
siah should  be  a  prophet,  priest,  and  king,  so  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  represent  the  Lord  Jesus  as  sustaining  all  these 
offices.  (4.)  That  this  is  not  a  merely  figurative  representation  is 
plain  from  the  fact  that  Christ  exercised  all  the  functions  of  a  prophet, 
of  a  priest,  and  of  a  king.  He  was  not  simply  so  called,  but  the 
work  which  He  actually  performed  included  in  perfection  all  that 


§3.]  THE   THREEFOLD   OFFICE   OF   CHRIST.  461 

the  ancient  prophets,  priests,  and  kings  performed  in  a  lower  sphere 
and  as  an  adumbration  of  Christ's  more  perfect  work.  (5.)  We  as 
fallen  men,  ignorant,  guilty,  polluted,  and  helpless,  need  a  Saviour 
who  is  a  prophet  to  instruct  us;  a  priest  to  atone  and  to  make  inter- 
cession for  Ub ;  and  a  king  to  rule  over  and  protect  us.  And  the 
salvation  which  we  receive  at  his  hands  includes  all  that  a  prophet, 
priest,  and  king  in  the  highest  sense  of  those  terms  can  do.  We 
are  enlightened  in  the  knowledge  of  the  truth ;  we  are  reconciled 
unto  God  by  the  sacrificial  death  of  his  Son ;  and  we  are  delivered 
from  the  power  of  Satan  and  introduced  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ; 
all  of  which  supposes  that  our  Redeemer  is  to  us  at  once  prophet, 
priest,  and  king.  This  is  not,  therefore,  simply  a  convenient  clas- 
sification of  the  contents  of  his  mission  and  work,  but  it  enters  into 
its  very  nature,  and  must  be  retained  in  our  theology  if  we  would 
take  the  truth  as  it  is  revealed  in  the  Word  of  God. 

Under  the  old  economy  the  functions  of  these  several  offices  were 
not  only  confided  to  different  persons,  no  one  under  the  theocracy 
being  at  once  prophet,  priest,  and  king ;  but  when  two  of  these 
offices  were  united  in  one  person  they  were  still  separate.  The 
same  man  might  sometimes  act  as  prophet  and  sometimes  as  priest 
or  king ;  but  in  Christ  these  offices  were  more  intimately  united. 
He  instructed  while  acting  as  a  priest,  and  his  dominion  extending 
over  the  soul  gave  freedom  from  blindness  and  error  as  well  as 
from  the  power  of  sin  and  the  dominion  of  the  devil.  The  gospel 
is  his  sceptre.  He  rules  the  world  by  truth  and  love.  "  Tria  ista 
officia,"  saysTurrettin,  "ita  in  Christo  conjunguntur,  ut  non  solum 
eorum  operationes  distinctas  exerat,  sed  eadem  actio  a  tribus  simul 
prodeat,  quod  rei  admirabilitatem  non  parum  auget.  Sic  Crux 
Christi,  quae  est  Altare  sacerdotis,  in  quo  se  in  victimam  Deo 
obtulit,  est  etiam  schola  prophetae,  in  qua  nos  docet  mysterium 
salutis,  unde  Evangelium  vocatur  verbum  crucis,  et  Trophaeum 
regis,  in  qua  scil.  triumphavit  de  principatibus  et  potestatibus. 
Col.  ii.  15.  Evangelium  est  lex  pi'ophetae.  Is.  ii.  2,  3,  Sceptrum 
regis,  Ps.  ex.  2,  Gladius  sacerdotis,  quo  penetrat  ad  intimas  cordis 
divisiones,  Heb.  iv.  12,  et  Altare,  cui  imponi  debet  sacrificium  fidei 
nostras.  Ita  Spiritus,  qui  ut  Spiritus,  sapientiae  est  effectus  pro- 
phetias,  ut  Spiritus  consolationis  est  fructus  sacerdotii,  ut  Spiritus 
roboris  et  gloriae  est  regis  donum."  " 

1  Locus  XIV.  qusest.  v.  13,  edit.  Edinburgh,  1847,  vol.  ii.  pp.  347,  348. 


CHAPTER  V. 

PROPHETIC   OFFICE. 

§  1.  Nature  of  the  Prophetic  Office. 

According  to  Scriptural  usage  a  prophet  is  one  who  speaks  for 
another.  In  Exodus  vii.  1,  it  is  said,  "  See,  I  have  made  thee  a 
God  to  Pharaoh  :  and  Aaron  thy  brother  sliall  be  thy  prophet." 
Moses  was  to  be  the  authoritative  source  of  the  communication, 
Aaron  the  organ  of  communication.  This  is  the  relation  of  the 
prophet  to  God.  God  communicates,  the  prophet  announces  the 
message  which  he  has  received.  In  Exodus  iv.  16,  it  is  said  of 
Aaron  in  relation  to  Moses,  "  He  shall  be  to  thee  instead  of  a 
mouth."  And  in  Jeremiah  xv.  19,  it  is  said  of  the  prophet,  "  Thou 
shalt  be  as  my  mouth."  In  the  inauguration  of  a  prophet,  or  in 
constituting  a  man  the  spokesman  of  God,  it  is  said,  "  I  will  put  my 
words  in  his  mouth  ;  and  he  siiall  speak  unto  them  all  that  I  shall 
command  him.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  whosoever  will  not 
hearken  unto  my  words,  which  he  shall  speak  in  my  name,  I  will 
require  it  of  him."  (Deuteronomy  xviii.  18,  19.)  A  prophet, 
therefore,  is  one  who  speaks  in  the  name  of  God.  He  must,  how- 
ever, be  the  immediate  organ  of  God.  In  one  sense  every  one  who 
reads  or  preaches  the  word  of  God  may  be  said  "  to  speak  in  his 
name."  The  trutlis  which  he  utters  rest  upon  the  authority  of 
God ;  they  are  his  words  which  the  preacher  is  the  organ  of  an- 
nouncing to  the  people.  Ministers,  however,  are  not  prophets.  A 
broad  distinction  is  made  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  be- 
tween prophets  and  teachers.  The  former  were  inspired,  the  latter 
were  not.  Any  man  receiving  a  revelation  from  God,  or  inspired 
in  the  communication  of  it,  is,  in  the  Scriptures,  called  a  prophet. 
Hence  all  the  sacred  writings  are  called  prophetic.  The  Jews 
divided  their  Scriptures  into  the  law  and  the  prophets.  Tiie  law,  or 
pentateuch,  was  written  by  Moses,  who  was  confessedly  a  prophet, 
and  the  other  class,  including  all  the  historical,  devotional,  and  pro- 
phetic portions  (commonly  so  called)  is  also  the  work  of  prophets, 
i.  e.,  of  inspired  men.  The  prediction  of  the  future  was  only  an 
incidental  part  of  the  prophet's  work,  because  some  of  the  com- 
munications which  he  received  had  reference  to  future  events. 


§  2.]  HOW    CHRIST   EXECUTES    THE   OFFICE.  463 

When,  therefore,  the  Messiah  was  predicted  as  a  prophet  it  was 
predicted  that  He  should  be  the  great  organ  of  God  in  communi- 
cating his  mind  and  will  to  men.  And  when  our  Lord  appeared 
on  earth  it  was  to  speak  the  words  of  God.  "  The  word  which 
ye  hear  is  not  mine,  but  the  Father's  which  sent  me."  (John  xiv. 
24.)  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth  which  was  a  prophet  mighty  in  deed  and 
word."     (Luke  xxiv.  19.) 

§  2.  How  Christ  executes  the  Office  of  a  Prophet,. 

In  the  execution  of  his  prophetic  office,  Christ  is  revealed  to  us, 
(1.)  As  the  eternal  Word,  the  Aoyos,  the  manifested  and  manifest- 
inof  Jehovah.  He  is  the  source  of  all  knowledcje  to  the  intelliorent 
universe,  and  especially  to  the  children  of  men.  He  was,  and  is, 
the  light  of  the  world.  He  is  the  truth.  In  Him  dwell  all  the 
treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge ;  and  from  Him  radiates  all  the 
light  that  men  receive  or  attain.  (2.)  This,  although  independent 
of  his  official  work  as  prophet  in  the  economy  of  redemption,  is  its 
necessary  foundation.  Had  He  not  in  Himself  the  plenitude  of 
divine  wisdom  He  could  not  be  the  source  of  knowledge,  and  es- 
pecially of  thut  knowledge  which  is  eternal  life  to  all  his  people. 
Under  the  old  dispensation,  or  before  his  adv^ent  in  the  flesh,  He 
made  known  God  and  his  purposes  and  will,  not  only  by  personal 
manifestations  of  Himself  to  the  patriarchs  and  prophets,  but  also 
by  his  Spirit,  in  revealing  the  truth  and  will  of  God,  in  inspiring 
those  appointed  to  record  these  revelations,  and  in  illuminating  the 
minds  of  his  people,  and  thus  bringing  them  to  the  saving  knowl- 
edge of  the  truth.  (3.)  While  on  earth  He  continued  the  exercise 
of  his  prophetic  office  by  his  personal  instructions,  in  his  discourses, 
parables,  and  expositions  of  the  law  and  of  the  prophets  ;  and  in  all 
that  He  taught  concerning  his  own  person  and  work,  and  concern- 
ing the  progress  and  consummation  of  his  kingdom.  (4.)  Since 
his  ascension  He  performs  the  same  office  not  only  in  the  fuller 
revelation  of  the  gospel  made  to  the  Apostles  and  in  their  inspira- 
tion as  infallible  teachers,  but  also  in  the  institution  of  the  ministry 
and  constantly  calling  men  to  that  office,  and  by  the  influences  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  who  cooperates  with  the  truth  in  every  human 
heart,  and  renders  it  effectual  to  the  sanctification  and  salvation 
of  his  own  people.  Thus  from  the  beginning,  both  in  his  state  of 
humiliation  and  of  exaltation,  both  before  and  after  his  advent  in 
the  flesh,  does  Christ  execute  the  office  of  a  prophet  in  revealing 
to  us  by  his  Woixl  and  Spirit  the  will  of  God  for  our  salvation. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

PRIESTLY  OFFICE. 

§  1.   Christ  is  truly^  not  figuratively,  a  Priest. 

The  meaning  of  the  word  priest  and  the  nature  of  the  office  are 
to  be  determined,  first,  by  general  usage  and  consent ;  secondly, 
by  the  express  declarations  of  the  Scriptures  ;  and,  thirdly,  by  the 
nature  of  the  functions  peculiar  to  the  office.  From  these  sources 
it  can  be  shown  that  a  priest  is,  (1.)  A  man  duly  appointed  to  act 
for  other  men  in  things  pertaining  to  God.  The  idea  which  lies  at 
the  foundation  of  the  office  is,  that  men,  being  sinners,  have  not 
liberty  of  access  to  God.  Therefore,  one,  either  having  that  right 
in  himself,  or  to  whom  it  is  conceded,  must  be  appointed  to  draw 
near  to  God  in  their  behalf.  A  priest,  consequently,  from  the 
nature  of  his  office,  is  a  mediator.  (2.)  A  priest  is  appointed  to 
offer  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sins.  His  function  is  to  reconcile  men 
to  God ;  to  make  expiation  for  their  sins  ;  and  to  present  their  per- 
sons, acknowledgments,  and  offerings  to  God.  (3.)  He  makes  in- 
tercession for  the  people.  Not  merely  as  one  man  may  pray  for 
another,  but  as  urging  the  efficacy  of  his  sacrifice  and  the  authority 
of  his  office,  as  grounds  on  which  his  prayers  should  be  answered. 

Much  depends  upon  the  correctness  of  this  definition.  It  would 
amount  to  little  to  admit  Christ  to  be  a  priest,  if  by  that  term  we 
mean  merely  a  minister  of  religion,  or  even  one  by  whose  interven- 
tion divine  blessings  are  secured  and  conveyed.  But  if  by  a  priest 
be  meant  all  that  is  included  in  the  above  statement,  then  the 
relation  in  which  Christ  stands  to  us,  our  duties  to  Him,  his  relation 
to  God,  and  the  nature  of  his  work,  are  all  thereby  determined. 

That  the  above  definition  is  correct,  and  that  Christ  is  a  priest 
in  the  true  sense  of  the  term,  is  evident, 

1.  From  the  general  usage  of  the  word  and  the  nature  of  the 
office  among  all  nations  and  in  all  ages  of  the  world.  Men  have 
everywhere  and  at  all  times  been  conscious  of  sin.  In  that  con- 
sciousness are  included  a  sense  of  guilt  (or  of  just  exposure  to  the 
displeasure  of  God),  of  pollution,  and  of  consequent  unworthiness 
to  approach  God.     Their  consciences,  or  the  laws  of  their  moral 


§  1.]  CHRIST  A   TRUE  PRIEST.  465 

nature,  have  ever  taught  them  the  necessity  of  the  expiation  of 
guilt  by  a  satisfaction  of  divine  justice,  and  their  own  inability  and 
unwortliiness  to  make  any  adequate  atonement,  or  to  secure  by  their 
own  eflForts  the  favour  of  God.  They  have,  therefore,  ever  sought 
for  some  one  or  some  class  of  men  to  act  in  their  behalf;  to  do  for 
them  what  they  knew  must  be  done,  and  that  which  they  were 
convinced  they  could  not  do  for  themselves.  Hence  the  appoint- 
ment of  priests,  who  were  always  regarded  as  men  whose  business 
it  was  to  propitiate  God  by  expiatory  sacrifices,  by  oblations,  and 
by  prayers.  To  say  that  a  priest  is  merely  a  teacher  of  religion  is 
to  contradict  the  universal  testimony  of  history. 

2.  The  sense  in  which  Christ  is  a  priest  must  be  determined  by 
the  use  of  the  word  and  by  the  nature  of  the  office  under  the  old 
dispensation.  In  the  Old  Testament  a  priest  was  a  man  selected 
from  the  people,  appointed  to  act  as  their  mediator,  drawing  nigh 
to  God  in  their  behalf,  whose  business  it  was  to  offer  expiatory  sac- 
rifices, and  to  make  intercession  for  offenders.  The  people  were 
not  allowed  to  draw  near  to  God.  The  High  Priest  alone  could 
enter  within  the  veil ;  and  he  only  with  blood  which  he  offered  for 
himself  and  for  the  sins  of  the  people.  All  this  was  both  symbolical 
and  typical.  What  the  Aaronic  priests  were  symbolically,  Christ 
was  really.  What  they  in  their  office  and  services  typified  was 
fulfilled  in  Him.  They  wei'e  the  shadow.  He  the  substance. 
They  taught  how  sin  was  to  be  taken  away,  He  actually  removed 
it.  It  would  be  to  set  the  Scriptures  at  naught,  or  to  adopt  prin- 
ciples of  interpretation  which  would  invalidate  all  their  teaching,  to 
deny  that  Christ  is  a  priest  in  the  Old  Testament  sense  of  the  term. 

3.  We  have  in  the  New  Testament  an  authoritative  definition 
of  the  word,  and  an  exhibition  of  the  nature  of  the  office.  In  He- 
brews V.  1,  it  is  said,  "  Every  high  priest  ....  is  ordained  for 
men  (inrep  avdptaTrojv,  for  their  benefit  and  in  their  place),  in  things 
pertaining  to  God,  that  he  may  offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for 
sins."  Here  all  the  ideas  above  insisted  upon  are  distinctly  rec- 
ognized. A  priest  is  a  man  appointed  for  others,  to  draw  near  to 
God,  and  to  offer  sacrifices.  Such  a  priest  Christ  is  declared  to 
have  been. 

4.  Christ  is  not  only  called  a  priest  in  Hebrews,  but  the  Apostle 
throuo-hout  that  Epistle  proves,  (a.)  That  He  had  all  the  qualifica- 
tions for  the  office.  (6.)  That  He  was  appointed  by  God.  (c.)  That 
He  was  a  priest  of  a  higher  order  than  Aaron,  (df.)  That  his 
priesthood  superseded  all  others,  (e.)  That  He  performed  all  the 
functions  of  the    office,  —  mediation,   sacrifice,   and  intercession. 

VOL.  II.  30 


466  PART  in.   Ch.  VI.— priestly  office. 

(/.)  That  such  was  the  efficacy  of  his  sacrifice  that  it  needs  not  to 
be  repeated.  By  the  one  offering  of  Himself  He  hath  obtained 
eternal  redemption  for  us. 

5.  The  effects  or  benefits  secured  by  the  work  of  Christ  are  those 
which  flow  from  the  exercise  of  the  priestly  office  in  our  behalf. 
Those  benefits  are,  (a.)  Expiation  of  our  guilt ;  (6.)  The  propitia- 
tion of  God ;  and  (c.)  Our  consequent  reconciliation  with  Him, 
whence  flow  all  the  subjective  blessings  of  spiritual  and  eternal  life. 
These  are  benefits  which  are  not  secured  by  teaching,  by  moral  in- 
fluence, by  example,  or  by  any  inward  change  wrought  in  us.  Christ, 
therefore,  is  truly  a  priest  in  the  full  Scriptural  sense  of  the  term. 

§  2.   Christ  our  only  Priest. 

This  follows  from  the  nature  and  design  of  the  office.  (1.)  No 
man,  save  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  has  liberty  of  access  unto  God. 
All  other  men,  being  sinners,  need  some  one  to  appi'oach  God  on 
their  behalf.  (2.)  No  other  sacrifice  than  his  could  take  away  sin. 
(3.)  It  is  only  through  Him  that  God  is  propitious  to  sinful  men  : 
and  (4.)  It  is  only  through  Him  that  the  benefits  which  flow  from 
the  favour  of  God  are  conveyed  to  his  people. 

The  priests  of  the  Old  Testament  were,  as  before  remarked, 
only  symbols  and  types  of  the  true  priesthood  of  Christ.  Their 
sacrifices  could  not  purify  the  conscience  from  the  sense  of  sin 
They  availed  only  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh.  They  secured 
reconciliation  with  God  only  so  far  as  they  were  regarded  as  repre- 
senting the  real  sacrifice  of  Christ  as  the  object  of  faith  and  ground 
of  confidence.  Hence,  as  the  Apostle  teaches,  they  were  offered 
continually,  because,  being  ineffectual  in  themselves,  the  people 
needed  to  be  constantly  reminded  of  their  guilt  and  of  their  need 
of  the  more  effectual  sacrifice  predicted  in  their  Scriptures. 

If  the  Old  Testament  priests  were  not  really  priests,  except 
typically,  much  less  are  ministers  of  the  gospel.  When  among 
Protestants  any  class  of  ministers  are  called  priests,  the  word  is  the 
substitute  for  presbyter,  for  which  it  is  constantly  interchanged. 
It  stands  for  Trpeo-^uTcpos  and  not  for  lepcus.  (It  is  defined,  Greek, 
TTpeaf^vTipos^  elder ;  Latin,  presbyter;  Spanish,  presbitero  ;  French, 
pretre  ;  Anglo  Saxon,  preost ;  Dutch  and  German,  priester  ;  Dan- 
ish, praest.)  Among  Romanists  it  is  not  so.  With  them  the  min- 
ister is  really  a  priest.  (1.)  Because  he  mediates  between  God 
and  the  people.  (2.)  Because  he  assumes  to  offer  propitiatory 
sacrifices.  (3.)  Because  in  absolution  he  effectually  and  authori- 
tatively intercedes,  rendering  the  sacrifice  for  sin   effectual  in  its 


§2.]  CHRIST    OUR  ONLY  PRIEST.  467 

application  to  individuals,  which  is  the  essential  element  in  the  in- 
tercession of  Christ.  The  Roman  priests  are  mediators,  because  it 
is  taught  that  the  sinner  cannot  for  himself  draw  near  to  God 
through  Christ  and  obtain  pardon  and  grace,  but  can  secure  those 
blessings  only  through  their  intervention.  They  are  sacrificers, 
because  they  assume  to  offer  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ  to 
God,  as  an  expiation  for  the  sins  of  the  people.  And  they  are 
intercessors,  not  as  one  man  may  pray  for  another,  but  as  having 
the  power  to  forgive  sins.  They  have  therefore  the  power  of  h'fe 
and  death ;  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  They  bind,  and 
no  man  can  loose  ;  they  loose,  and  no  man  can  bind.  This  is  the 
highest  power  which  man  has  ever  assumed  over  his  fellow-men, 
and  when  recognized,  reduces  the  people  to  a  state  of  the  most 
absolute  subjection.  No  greater  benefit  was  rendered  the  world  by 
the  Reformation  than  the  breaking  of  this  iron  yoke.  This  was 
done  by  demonstrating,  from  Scripture,  that  the  ministers  of  relig- 
ion under  the  gospel  are  not  priests  in  the  official  sense  of  the  term. 
It  was  shown, 

1.  That  the  word  priest,  lepev?,  is  never  once  applied  to  them  in 
the  New  Testament.  Every  appropriate  title  of  honour  is  lavished 
upon  them.  They  are  called  the  bishops  of  souls,  pastors,  teach- 
ers, rulers,  governors,  the  servants  or  ministers  of  God ;  stewards 
of  the  divine  mysteries ;  watchmen,  heralds,  but  never  priests. 
As  the  sacred  writers  were  Jews,  to  whom  nothing  was  more  fa- 
miliar than  the  word  priest,  whose  ministers  of  religion  were  con- 
stantly so  denominated,  the  fact  that  they  never  once  use  the  word, 
or  any  of  its  cognates,  in  reference  to  the  ministers  of  the  gospel, 
whether  apostles,  presbyters,  or  evangelists,  is  little  less  than  mirac- 
ulous. It  is  one  of  those  cases  in  which  the  silence  of  Scripture 
speaks  volumes. 

2.  No  priestly  function  is  ever  attributed  to  Christian  ministers. 
They  do  not  mediate  between  God  and  man.  They  are  never  said 
to  oifer  sacrifices  for  sins  ;  and  they  have  no  power  as  intercessors 
which  does  not  belong  to  every  believer. 

3.  All  believers  are  priests  in  the  only  sense  in  which  men  are 
priests  under  the  gospel.  That  is,  all  have  liberty  of  access  to 
God  through  Christ.  He  has  made  all  his  people  kings  and  priests 
unto  God. 

4.  This  Romish  doctrine  is  derogatory  to  the  honour  of  Christ. 
He  came  to  be  the  mediator  between  God  and  man ;  to  make  sat- 
isfaction for  our  sins,  to  secure  for  us  pardon  and  reconciliation 
with  God.  To  suppose  that  we  still  need  the  priestly  intervention 
of  men,  is  to  assume  that  his  work  is  a  failure. 


468  PART   III.     Ch.   VI.  — priestly   OFFICE. 

5.  The  sacred  writers  expressly  teach  what  this  doctrine  denies. 
They  teach  tiiat  men  have  everywhere  free  access  to  Christ,  and 
through  Him  unto  God  ;  tliat  faith  in  Him  secures  an  interest  in 
all  the  benefits  of  his  redemption,  and  that,  therefore,  a  thief  on  the 
cross,  a  prisoner  in  a  dungeon,  a  solitai'y  believer  in  his  own  cham- 
ber is  near  to  God,  and  secure  of  his  acceptance,  provided  he  calls 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord.  To  deny  this,  to  teach  the  necessity  of 
the  intervention  or  ministration  of  men,  to  secure  for  us  the  salva- 
tion of  our  souls,  is  to  contradict  the  plainest  teachings  of  the  Word 
of  God. 

6.  This  doctrine  contradicts  the  intimate  convictions  of  the  peo- 
ple of  God  in  all  ages.  They  know  that  they  have  through  Christ 
and  by  the  Spirit  free  access  unto  God.  They  are  thus  taught  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.  They  avail  themselves  of  this  liberty  in  spite  of 
all  men  can  do.  They  know  that  the  doctrine  which  subjects  them 
to  the  priesthood  as  the  only  authorized  dispensers  of  grace  and 
salvation,  is  not  of  God ;  and  that  it  brings  the  souls  of  men  into 
the  most  slavish  bondage. 

7.  All  the  principles  on  which  the  doctrine  of  the  priesthood  of 
the  Christian  clergy  rests  are  false.  It  is  false  that  the  ministry 
are  a  distinct  class  from  the  people,  distinguished  from  them  by 
supernatural  gifts,  conveyed  by  the  sacrament  of  orders.  It  is 
false  that  the  bread  and  wine  are  transmuted  into  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ.  It  is  false  that  the  Eucharist  is  a  propitiatory 
sacrifice  applied  for  the  remission  of  sins  and  spiritual  benefits, 
according  to  the  intention  of  the  officiating  priest.  Christ,  there- 
fore, as  He  is  the  only  mediator  between  God  and  man,  is  the  only 
and  all-sufficient  High  Priest  of  our  profession. 

§  3.  Definition  of  Terms. 

Christ,  it  is  said,  executeth  the  office  of  a  priest,  in  his  once 
offi?ring  up  Himself  a  sacrifice  to  satisfy  divine  justice,  and  recon- 
cile us  to  God,  and  in  making  continual  intercession  for  us.  Ex- 
piation, propitiation,  reconciliation,  and  intercession  are  the  several 
aspects  under  which  the  work  of  Christ  as  a  priest,  is  presented  in 
the  Word  of  God. 

Before  attempting  to  state  what  the  Scriptures  teach  in  reference 
to  these  points,  it  will  be  well  to  define  the  terms  which  are  of  con- 
stant occurrence  in  theological  discussions  of  this  subject. 


§3.]  DEFINITION  OF  TERMS.  469 

The  Word  Atonement. 
The  word  atonement  is  often  used,  especially  in  this  country,  to 
designate  the  priestly  work  of  Christ.  This  word  does  not  occur 
in  the  English  version  of  the  New  Testament  except  in  Romans 
V.  11,  where  it  is  interchanged  with  "  reconciliation  "  as  the  trans- 
lation  of  the  Greek  word  KaraAAay?;.  In  the  Old  Testament  it  fre- 
quently occurs.  The  objections  to  its  use  to  express  the  work  of 
Christ  are,  — 

1.  Its  ambiguity.  To  atone  is  properly  to  be,  or  cause  to  be, 
at  orie.  It  is  so  used  in  common  language  as  well  as  in  theology. 
In  this  sense  to  atone  is  to  reconcile  ;  and  atonement  is  reconcilia- 
tion. It,  therefore,  expresses  the  effect,  and  not  the  nature  of 
Christ's  work.  But  it  is  also,  in  the  second  place,  used  to  express 
that  by  which  the  reconciliation  is  effected.  It  then  means  satis- 
faction, or  compensation.  It  answers  in  our  version  to  the  He- 
brew word  "153;  which  in  relation  to  the  offence  or  guilt,  means  to 
expiate.  Thus  in  Leviticus  v.  16,  it  is  said,  if  a  man  commit  an 
offence,  vbv  "i?P!'  1^33^^,  the  priest  shall  make  atonement  for  him  ; 
i.  g.,  shall  expiate,  or  make  satisfaction  for  his  offence.  So  in  Ex. 
xxxii.  30  ;  Lev.  iv.  26  ;  Num.  vi.  11.  In  reference  to  the  person 
of  the  offender,  it  means  to  reconcile  by  means  of  expiation,  to  pro- 
pitiate God  in  his  behalf.  See  Ex.  xxx.  15  ;  Lev.  iv.  20  ;  xvi.  6. 
Ezekiel  xlv.  17,  "It  shall  be  the  prince's  part  to  give  burnt- 
offerings-,  ...  he  shall  prepare  the  sin-offering  .  .  .  1V2  "i??? 
bsn:c;'"n"*5  to  make  reconciliation  for  the  house  of  Israel."  Thus 
often  elsewhere.  While  the  verb  to  atone  thus  means  to  expiate 
•and  to  reconcile  by  expiation,  the  substantive  means,  either  the  re- 
conciliation itself,  or  the  means  by  which  it  is  effected.  This  latter 
sense  is  not  a  Scriptural  usage  of  the  word,  but  is  very  common  in 
theological  writings.  Thus  when  we  speak  of  the  atonement  of 
Christ,  of  its  necessity,  efficacy,  application,  or  extent,  we  mean 
Christ's  work,  what  He  did  to  expiate  the  sins  of  men.  This  ambig- 
uity of  the  word  necessarily  gives  rise  to  more  or  less  confusion. 

2.  Another  objection  to  its  general  use  is  that  it  is  not  suffi- 
ciently comprehensive.  As  commonly  used  it  includes  only  the 
sacrificial  work  of  Christ,  and  not  his  vicarious  obedience  to  the 
divine  law.  The  atonement  of  Christ  is  said  to  consist  of  his  suffer- 
ings and  death.  But  his  saving  work  includes  far  more  than  his 
expiatory  sufferings. 

3.  A  third  objection  is  that  this  use  of  the  word  atonement  is 
a  departure  from   the  established  usage   of   the  Churches  of  the 


470  PART  in.   Ch.  VI.— priestly  office. 

Reformation.     It  is  important  to  adhere  to  old  words  if  we  would 
adhere  to  old  doctrines. 

Satisfaction. 

The  word  satisfaction  is  the  one  which  for  ages  has  been  gen- 
erally used  to  designate  the  special  work  of  Christ  in  the.  salvation 
of  men.  With  the  Latin  theologians  the  word  is  "  satisf actio, ''^ 
with  the  German  writers,  "  Genugthun,"  its  exact  etymological 
equivalent,  "  the  doing  enough."  By  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  is 
meant  all  He  has  done  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  law  and  justice 
of  God,  in  the  place  and  in  behalf  of  sinners.  This  word  has  the 
advantage  of  being  precise,  comprehensive,  and  generally  accepted, 
and  should  therefore  be  adhered  to.  There  are,  however,  two 
kinds  of  satisfaction,  which  as  they  differ  essentially  in  their  nature 
and  effects,  should  not  be  confounded.  The  one  is  pecuniary  or 
commercial ;  the  other  penal  or  forensic.  When  a  debtor  pays 
the  demand  of  his  creditor  in  full,  he  satisfies  his  claims,  and  is 
entirely  free  from  any  further  demands.  In  this  case  the  thing  paid 
is  the  precise  sum  due,  neither  more  nor  less.  It  is  a  simple  matter 
of  commutative  justice ;  a  quid  pro  quo  ;  so  much  for  so  much. 
There  can  be  no  condescension,  mercy,  or  grace  on  the  part  of  a 
creditor  receiving  the  payment  of  a  debt.  It  matters  not  to  him 
by  whom  the  debt  is  paid,  whether  by  the  debtor  himself,  or  by 
some  one  in  his  stead  ;  because  the  claim  of  the  creditor  is  simply 
upon  the  amount  due  and  not  upon  the  person  of  the  debtor.  In 
the  case  of  crimes  the  matter  is  different.  The  demand  is  then 
upon  the  offender.  He  himself  is  amenable  to  justice.  Substitu- 
tion in  human  courts  is  out  of  the  question.  The  essential  point 
in  matters  of  crime,  is  not  the  nature  of  the  penalty,  but  who  shall 
suffer.  The  soul  that  sins,  it  shall  die.  And  the  penalty  need  not 
be,  and  very  rarely  is,  of  the  nature  of  the  injury  inflicted.  All 
that  is  required  is  that  it  should  be  a  just  equivalent.  For  an  as- 
sault, it  may  be  a  fine  ;  for  theft,  imprisonment ;  for  treason,  ban- 
ishment, or  death.  In  case  a  substitute  is  pi-ovided  to  bear  the 
penalty  in  the  place  of  the  criminal,  it  would  be  to  the  off'ender  a 
matter  of  pure  grace,  enhanced  in  proportion  to  the  dignity  of  the 
substitute,  and  the  greatness  of  the  evil  from  which  the  criminal  is 
delivered.  Another  important  difference  between  pecuniary  and 
penal  satisfaction,  is  that  the  one  ipso  facto  liberates.  The  moment 
the  debt  is  paid  the  debtor  is  free,  and  that  completely.  No  delay 
can  be  admitted,  and  no  conditions  can  be  attached  to  his  deliv- 
erance.    But  in  the  case  of  a  criminal,  as  he  has  no  claim  to  have 


§3.]  DEFINITION   OF   TERMS.  471 

a  substitute  take  his  place,  if  one  be  provided,  the  terms  on  which 
the  benefits  of  his  substitution  shall  accrue  to  the  principal,  are 
matters  of  agreement,  or  covenant  between  the  substitute  and  the 
magistrate  who  represents  justice.  The  deliverance  of  the  offen- 
der may  be  immediate,  unconditional,  and  complete ;  or,  it  may  be 
deferred,  suspended  on  certain  conditions,  and  its  benefits  gradu- 
ally bestowed. 

As  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  was  not  pecuniary,  but  penal  or 
forensic ;  a  satisfaction  for  sinners,  and  not  for  those  who  owed  a 
certain  amount  of  money,  it  follows,  — 

1.  That  it  does  not  consist  in  an  exact  quid  pro  quo,  so  much  for 
so  much.  This,  as  just  remarked,  is  not  the  case  even  among  men. 
The  penalty  for  theft  is  not  the  restitution  of  the  thing  stolen,  or 
its  exact  pecuniary  value.  It  is  generally  something  of  an  entirely 
different  nature.  It  may  be  stripes  or  Imprisonment.  The  pun- 
ishment for  an  assault  is  not  the  infliction  of  the  same  degree  of 
injury  on  the  person  of  the  offender.  So  of  slander,  breach  of 
trust,  treason,  and  all  other  criminal  offences.  The  punishment 
for  the  offence  is  something  different  from  the  evil  which  the 
offender  himself  inflicted.  All  that  justice  demands  in  penal  satis- 
faction is  that  it  should  be  a  real  satisfaction,  and  not  merely 
something  graciously  accepted  as  such.  It  must  bear  an  adequate 
proportion  to  the  crime  committed.  It  may  be  different  in  kind, 
but  it  must  have  inherent  value.  To  fine  a  man  a  few  pence  for 
wanton  homicide  would  be  a  mockery  ;  but  death  or  imprisonment 
for  life  would  be  a  real  satisfaction  to  justice.  All,  therefore,  that 
the  Church  teaches  when  it  says  that  Christ  satisfied  divine  justice 
for  the  sins  of  men,  is  that  what  He  did  and  suffered  was  a  real 
adequate  compensation  for  the  penalty  remitted  and  the  benefits 
conferred.  His  sufferings  and  death  were  adequate  to  accomplish 
all  the  ends  designed  by  the  punishment  of  the  sins  of  men.  He 
satisfied  justice.  He  rendered  it  consistent  with  the  justice  of  God 
that  the  sinner  should  be  justified.  But  He  did  not  suffer  either  m 
kind  or  degree  what  sinners  would  have  suffered.  In  value,  his 
sufferings  infinitely  transcended  theirs.  The  death  of  an  eminently 
good  man  would  outweigh  the  annihilation  of  a  universe  of  insects. 
So  the  humiliation,  sufferings,  and  death  of  the  eternal  Son  of  God 
immeasurably  transcended  in  worth  and  power  the  penalty  which 
a  world  of  sinners  would  have  endured. 

2.  The  satisfaction  of  Christ  was  a  matter  of  grace.  The  Father 
was  not  bound  to  provide  a  substitute  for  fallen  men,  nor  was  the 
Son  bound  to  assume  that  office.     It  was  an  act  of  pure  grace  that 


4T2.  PART  m.   Ch.  VI.— priestly  office. 

God  arrested  the  execution  of  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  consented 
to  accept  the  vicarious  sufferings  and  death  of  his  only  begotten 
Son.  And  it  was  an  act  of  unparalleled  love  that  the  Son  con- 
sented to  assume  our  nature,  bear  our  sins,  and  die,  the  just  for 
the  unjust,  to  bring  us  near  to  God.  AH  the  benefits,  therefore, 
which  accrue  to  sinners  in  consequence  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ 
are  tb  them  pure  gratuities ;  blessings  to  which  in  themselves  they 
have  no  claim.     They  call  for  gratitude,  and  exclude  boasting. 

3.  Nevertheless,  it  is  a  matter  of  justice  that  the  blessings  which 
Christ  intended  to  secure  for  his  people  should  be  actually  bestowed 
upon  them.  This  follows,  for  two  reasons :  first,  they  were  prom- 
ised to  Him  as  the  reward  of  his  obedience  and  sufferings.  God 
covenanted  with  Christ  that  if  He  fulfilled  the  conditions  imposed^ 
if  He  made  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  his  people,  they  should  be 
saved.  It  follows,  secondly,  from  the  nature  of  a  satisfaction.  If 
the  claims  of  justice  are  satisfied  they  cannot  be  again  enforced. 
This  is  the  analogy  between  the  work  of  Christ  and  the  payment 
of  a  debt.  The  point  of  agreement  between  the  two  cases  is  not 
the  nature  of  the  satisfaction  rendered,  but  one  aspect  of  the  effect 
produced.  In  both  cases  the  persons  for  whom  the  satisfaction  is 
made  are  certainly  freed.  Their  exemption  or  deliverance  is  in  both 
cases,  and  equally  in  both,  a  matter  of  justice.  This  is  what  the 
Scriptures  teach  when  they  say  that  Christ  gave  Himself  for  a  ran- 
som. When  a  ransom  is  paid  and  accepted,  the  deliverance  of  the 
captive  is  a  matter  of  justice.  It  does  not,  however,  thereby  cease 
to  be  to  the  captives  a  matter  of  grace.  They  owe  a  debt  of  grati- 
tude to  him  who  paid  the  ransom,  and  that  debt  is  the  greater  when 
the  ransom  is  the  life  of  their  deliverer.  So  in  the  case  of  the  sat- 
isfaction of  Christ.  Justice  demands  the  salvation  of  his  people. 
That  is  his  reward.  It  is  He  who  has  acquired  this  claim  on  the 
justice  of  God;  his  people  have  no  such  claim  except  through  Him. 
Besides,  it  is  of  the  nature  of  a  satisfaction  that  it  answers  all  the 
ends  of  punishment.  What  reason  can  there  be  for  the  infliction 
of  the  penalty  for  which  satisfaction  has  been  rendered  ? 

4.  The  satisfaction  of  Christ  being  a  matter  of  covenant  between 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  the  distribution  of  its  benefits  is  determined 
by  the  terms  of  that  covenant.  It  does  not  ipso  facto  liberate. 
The  people  of  God  are  not  justified  from  eternity.  They  do  not 
come  into  the  world  in  a  justified  state.  They  remain  (if  adults) 
in  a  state  of  condemnation  until  they  believe.  And  even  the  ben- 
efits of  redemption  are  granted  gradually.  The  believer  receives 
more  and  more  of  them  in  this  life,  but  the  full  plenitude  of  bless- 


§  3.]  DEFINITION  OF  TERMS.  473 

ings  is  reserved  for  the  life  to  come.  All  these  are  facts  of  Scrip- 
ture and  of  experience,  and  they  are  all  explained  by  the  nature 
of  the  satisfaction  rendered.  It  is  not  the  payment  of  a  debt,  but  a 
matter  of  agreement  or  covenant.  It  seemed  good  to  the  parties 
to  the  covenant  of  redemption  that  matters  should  be  so  arranged. 

Penalty. 

The  words  penal  and  penalty  are  frequently  misunderstood.  By 
the  penalty  of  a  law  is  often  understood  a  specific  kind  or  degree 
of  suffering.  The  penalty  of  the  divine  law  is  said  to  be  eternal 
death.  Therefore  if  Christ  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  He  must 
have  suffered  death  eternal ;  or,  as  others  say.  He  must  have  en- 
dured the  same  kind  of  sufferings  as  those  who  are  cast  off  from 
God  and  die  eternally  are  called  upon  to  suffer.  This  difficulty  is 
sometimes  met  by  the  older  theologians  by  saying,  with  Burman,^ 
"Tenendum,  passionem  banc  Chrlsti,  licet  pcenarum  nostrarum  vim 
omnem  quoad  intensionem  quasi  exhauserit,  non  tamen  aBternitatem 
earum  tulisse  :  temporis  enim  infinitatem,  infinita  personse  dignitas 
recompensavit."  Turrettin  says,'"^  "  Si  Christus  mortem  seternam 
non  tulit  sed  temporalem  tantum  et  triduanam,  non  minus  tamen 
solvit  quod  a  nobis  debebatur  quoad  infinitatem  poense.  Quia  si  non 
fuit  infinita  quoad  durationem,  fuit  tamen  talis  gequivalenter  quoad 
valorem,  propter  personae  patientis  infinitam  dignitatem,  quia  non 
fuit  passio  meri  hominis,  sed  veri  Dei,  qui  suo  sanguine  Ecclesiam 
acquisivit,  Act.  xx.  28,  ut  quod  deest  finite  tempori,  suppleatur  per 
personaB  divinae  conditionem,  quae  passioni  temporali  pondus  addit 
infinitum." 

Another  answer  equally  common  is  that  Christ  suffered  what 
the  law  denounced  on  sinners,  so  far  as  the  essence  of  the  penalty 
is  concerned,  but  not  as  to  its  accidents.  These  accidents  greatly 
modify  all  punishments.  To  a  man  of  culture  and  refinement,  who 
has  near  relations  of  the  same  class,  imprisonment  for  crime  is  an 
unspeakably  more  severe  infliction  than  it  is  to  a  hardened  and 
degraded  offender.  The  essence  of  the  penalty  of  the  divine  law 
is  the  manifestation  of  God's  displeasure,  the  withdrawal  of  the 
divine  favour.  This  Christ  suffered  in  our  stead.  He  bore  the 
wrath  of  God.  In  the  case  of  sinful  creatures,  this  induces  final 
and  hopeless  perdition,  because  they  have  no  life  in  themselves.  In 
the  case  of  Christ,  it  was  a  transient  hiding  of  his  Father's  face. 
With  sinners,  this  being  cast  off  from  God  is  necessarily  attended 

1  Synopsis  Theohgm,  V.  xvii.  8,  edit.  Geneva,  1678,  vol.  ii.  p.  89. 

2  Instilutio,  loc.  xiv.  qu.  xi.  28;  Works,  edit.  Edinburgh,  1817,  vol.  ii.  p.  384. 


474  PART  m.   ch.  VI.  — priestly  office. 

by  remorse,  despair,  and  rebellious  resistance  and  enmity.  All 
these  are  mere  circumstantial  accidents,  not  attending  the  sufferings 
of  Christ.  Thus  Turrettin  says,  "  Vere  tulit  poenas  quas  damnati 
tulissemus,  non  quidam  tamdiu,  non  omnes,  non  in  eo  loco,  non  cum 
illis  effectis ;  sed  tamen  sensit  justam  Dei  iram."  Again, ^  "Licet 
desperatio  et  fremitus  conjungantur  cum  poenis  damnatorum ;  non 
sequitur  Christum  ferendo  posnas  peccato  debitas  debuisse  illis  ex- 
poni,  quia  non  sunt  de  essentia  poenae,  prout  a  judice  infligitur,  vel  a 
sponsore  sanctissimo  fertur ;  sed  habent  rationemadjuncti,  quod  earn 
comitatur,  propter  vitium  subjecti  patientis." 

A  third  and  more  satisfactoiy  answer  to  the  objection  in  question 
is  that  the  words  penal  and  penalty  do  not  designate  any  particular 
kind  or  degree  of  suffering,  but  any  kind  or  any  degree  which  is 
judicially  inflicted  in  satisfaction  of  justice.  The  word  death,  as 
used  in  Scripture  to  designate  the  wages  or  reward  of  sin,  includes 
all  kinds  and  degrees  of  suffering  inflicted  as  its  punishment.'  By 
the  words  penal  and  penalty,  therefore,  we  express  nothing  con- 
cerning the  nature  of  the  sufferings  endured,  but  only  the  design 
of  their  infliction.  Suffering  without  any  reference  to  the  reason 
of  its  occurrence  is  calamity ;  if  inflicted  for  the  benefit  of  the 
sufferer,  it  is  chastisement ;  if  for  the  satisfaction  of  justice,  it  is 
punishment.  The  very  same  kind  and  amount  of  suffering  may  in 
one  case  be  a  calamity  ;  in  another  a  chastisement ;  in  another  a 
punishment.  If  a  man  is  killed  by  accident,  it  is  a  calamity.  If  he 
is  put  to  death  on  account  of  crime  and  in  execution  of  a  judicial 
sentence,  it  is  punishment.  A  man  may  be  imprisoned  to  protect 
him  from  unjust  violence.  His  incarceration  is  then  an  act  of 
kindness.  But  if  he  be  imprisoned  in  execution  of  a  judicial  sen- 
tence, then  it  is  punishment.  In  both  cases  the  evil  suffered  may 
be  precisely  the  same.  Luther  was  imprisoned  for  years  to  save 
him  from  the  fury  of  the  Pope.  When,  therefore,  we  say  that 
Christ's  sufferings  were  penal,  or  that  He  suffered  the  penalty  of 
the  law,  we  say  nothing  as  to  the  nature  or  the  degree  of  tiie  pains 
which  He  endured.  We  only  say,  on  the  one  hand,  that  his  suffer- 
ings were  neither  mere  calamities,  nor  chastisements  designed  for 
his  own  benefit,  nor  merely  dogmatic,  or  symbolical,  or  exemplary, 
or  the  necessary  attendants  of  the  conflict  between  good  and  evil ; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  we  affirm  that  they  were  designed  for  the 
satisfaction  of  justice.  He  died  in  order  that  God  might  be  just 
in  justifying  the  ungodly. 

It  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  this,  however,  that  either  the  kind 

1  Loc.  XIV.  qu.  xi.  29,  edit.  Edinburgh,  1847,  vol.  ii.  p.  384. 


§3.]  DEFINITION  OF  TERMS.  475 

or  degree  of  our  Lord's  sufferings  was  a  matter  of  indifference. 
We  are  not  autliorized  to  say,  as  has  so  often  been  said,  that  one 
drop  of  his  blood  would  have  been  sufficient  to  redeem  the  world. 
This  may  express  a  pious  sentiment,  but  not  a  Scriptural  truth. 
He  would  not  have  suffered  as  He  did,  nor  to  the  degree  He  did, 
unless  there  had  been  an  adequate  reason  for  it.  There  must  be 
some  proportion  between  the  evil  endured,  and  the  benefit  to  be 
secured.  If  a  man  were  saved  from  death  or  bondage  by  a  prince's 
l)aying  a  shilling,  it  would  be  absurd  to  call  that  either  a  satisfac- 
tion, or  a  ransom.  There  must  be  enough  of  self-sacrifice  and 
suffering  to  give  dignity  and  inherent  value  to  the  proffered  atone- 
ment. While,  therefore,  the  value  of  Christ's  sufferings  is  due 
mainly  to  the  dignity  of  his  person,  their  character  and  intensity 
are  essential  elements  in  their  worth.  Nevertheless,  their  character 
as  penal  depends  not  on  their  nature,  but  on  their  design. 

Vicarious. 

By  vicarious  suffering  or  punishment  is  not  meant  merely  suffer- 
ings endured  for  the  benefit  of  others.  The  sufferings  of  martyrs, 
patriots,  and  philanthropists,  although  endured  for  the  good  of 
the  Church,  the  country,  or  of  mankind,  are  not  vicarious.  That 
word,  according  to  its  signification  and  usage,  includes  the  idea  of 
substitution.  Vicarious  suffering  is  suffering  endured  by  one  per- 
son in  the  stead  of  another,  i.  e.,  in  his  place.  It  necessarily  sup- 
poses the  exemption  of  the  party  in  whose  place  the  suffering  is 
endured.  A  vicar  is  a  substitute,  one  who  takes  the  place  of  an- 
other, and  acts  in  his  stead.  In  this  sense,  the  Pope  assumes  to  be 
the  vicar  of  Christ  on  earth.  He  claims  and  assumes  to  exercise 
Chi'ist's  prerogatives.  What  a  substitute  does  for  the  person  whose 
place  he  fills,  is  vicarious,  and  absolves  that  person  from  the  neces- 
sity of  doing  or  suffering  the  same  thing.^  When,  therefore,  it  is 
said  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  Avere  vicarious,  the  meaning  is 
that  He  suffered  in  the  place  of  sinners.  He  was  their  substitute. 
He  assumed  their  obligation  to  satisfv  justice.  What  He  did  and 
suffered  precluded  the  necessity  of  their  fulfilling  the  demands  of 
the  law  in  their  own  persons.  This  idea  of  substitution,  and  of 
vicarious  obedience  and  suffering,  pervades  all  the  religions  of  the 
world  ;  which  proves  that  it  has  its  foundation  in  the  nature  of 
man.     It  is  sanctioned  in  the  Word  of  God,  and  incorporated  in 

1  Even  in  medicine  the  word  retains  its  proper  meaning.  "  A  vicarious  secretion,  is  a 
secretion  from  one  part  instead  of  another."  It  ceases  to  be  vicarious  when  the  former  fail* 
to  stop  the  latter. 


476  PART  m.  Ch.  VI.— priestly  office. 

the  doctrines  therein  revealed.  And  this  proves  that  the  idea  is 
not  merely  human,  but  divine  ;  that  it  is  in  accordance,  not  only 
with  the  reason  of"  man,  but  with  the  reason  of  God.  It  is  an  un- 
fairness to  use  words  in  a  sense  inconsistent  with  their  established 
meaning  ;  to  say,  for  example,  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were 
vicarious,  when  nothing  more  is  meant  than  that  his  sufferings 
inured  to  the  good  of  mankind.  This  may  be  said  of  any  suffering 
for  the  public  good  ;  even  of  the  sufferings  of  criminals  ;  and  of  the 
finally  impenitent.  Christ's  sufferings  were  vicarious  in  the  sense 
in  which  the  death  of  one  man  is  vicarious  who  dies  in  the  place 
of  another  to  save  him  from  a  deserved  penalty ;  in  the  sense  in 
which  the  death  of  the  Old  Testament  sacrifice,  which  was  taken 
in  lieu  of  the  death  of  the  transgressor,  was  vicarious.  And  this 
is  the  sense  in  which  we  are  bound  to  use  the  word. 

G-uilt. 

The  word  guilt,  as  has  been  repeatedly  remarked,  expresses  the 
relation  which  sin  bears  to  justice,  or,  as  the  older  theologians  said, 
to  the  penalty  of  the  law.  This  relation,  however,  is  twofold. 
First,  that  which  is  expressed  by  the  words  criminality  and  ill- 
desert,  or  demerit.  This  is  inseparable  from  sin.  It  can  belong 
to  no  one  who  is  not  personally  a  sinner,  and  it  permanently  at- 
taches to  all  who  have  sinned.  It  is  not  removed  by  justification, 
much  less  by  pardon.  It  cannot  be  transferred  from  one  person  to 
the  other.  But  secondly,  guilt  means  the  obligation  to  satisfy 
justice.  This  may  be  removed  by  the  satisfaction  of  justice  per- 
sonally or  vicariously.  It  may  be  transferred  from  one  person  to 
another,  or  assumed  by  one  person  for  another.  When  a  man 
steals  or  commits  any  other  offence  to  which  a  specific  penalty  is 
attached  by  the  law  of  the  land,  if  he  submit  to  the  penalty,  his 
guilt  in  this  latter  sense  is  removed.  It  is  not  only  proper  that  he 
should  remain  without  further  molestation  by  the  state  for  that 
offence,  but  justice  demands  his  exemption  from  any  further  pun- 
ishment. It  is  in  this  sense  that  it  is  said  that  the  guilt  of  Adam's 
sin  is  imputed  to  us ;  that  Christ  assumed  the  guilt  of  our  sins ;  and 
that  his  blood  cleanses  from  guilt.  This  is  very  different  from  de- 
merit or  pei'sonal  ill-desert.  The  ordinary  theological  sense  of  the 
word  guilt  is  well  expressed  by  the  German  word  Schuld,  which 
means  the  responsibility  for  some  wrong,  or  injury,  or  loss  ;  or,  the 
obligation  to  make  satisfaction.  It,  therefore,  includes  the  mean- 
ing of  our  words  guilt  and  debt.  "  Ich  bin  niclit  schuldig,"  means, 
I  am  not  answerable.    I  am  not  bound  to  make  satisfaction.    "  Des 


§3.]  DEFINITION  OF  TERMS.  477 

Todes  schuldig  seyn,"  means  to  be  under  the  obligation  to  suffer 
death  as  a  penalty.  "  Des  hoUischen  Feuers  schuldig,"  means  to 
be  in  justice  bound  to  endure  the  fires  of  hell.  So  in  the  Lord's 
prayer,  "  Vergieb  uns  unsere  Schulden,"  remit  to  us  the  obligation 
to  satisfy  for  our  sins.  The  German  theologians,  old  and  new, 
therefore,  speak  of  the  guilt  (Schuld)  of  the  offender  being  trans- 
ferred in  the  sacrificial  services  of  the  Old  Testament,  from  the 
offender  to  the  victim.  "  Die  Schuld,"  says  Ebrard,^  "  kann,  wie 
wir  wissen,nur  so  hinweggethan  werden,  dass  sie  wirklich  gestraft, 
d.  h.  gesiihnt  wird ;  entweder  muss  der  Siinder  selbst  die  Strafe 
tragen,  oder  es  muss  sich  ein  stellvertretendes  Opfer  ausfindig 
machen  lassen,  welches  die  Schuld  zu  iibernehmen,  die  Strafe  zu 
tragen  und  alsdann  die  dadurch  erworbene  Schuldfreiheit  oder 
Gerechtigkeit  dem  Menschen  wieder  mitzutheilen  vermag."  That 
is,  "  Guilt,  as  we  know,  can  be  removed  only  by  punishment. 
Either  the  sinner  himself  must  bear  the  punishment,  or  a  substitute 
must  be  provided  to  assume  the  guilt,  and  bear  the  punishment, 
and  thus  freedom  from  guilt,  or  righteousness,  be  secured  for  the  of- 
fender." This  is  the  fundamental  idea  of  atonement  or  satisfaction, 
which  lies  at  the  basis  of  all  sacrifices  for  sin,  the  world  over,  and 
especially  those  of  the  Mosaic  economy.  And  this  is  the  essential 
idea  of  the  doctrine  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  as  it  is  presented 
in  the  Scriptures  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  and  which  is  so 
inwrought  into  the  faith  and  experience  of  the  people  of  God  that 
it  has  withstood  all  manner  of  assaults  from  within  and  from  with- 
out, from  philosophizing  believers  and  from  avowed  unbelievers. 
It  assumes  that  guilt,  Schuld,  reatus,  in  the  sense  of  the  obligation 
of  the  sinner  to  satisfy  divine  justice,  may  be  removed,  may  be 
transferred  from  one  person  to  another,  or  assumed  by  one  in  the 
place  of  another.  In  perfect  consistency  with  this  doctrine  it  is 
maintained  that  guilt  or  reatus  in  the  sense  of  demerit  or  ill-desert 
does  not  admit  of  removal  or  transfer. 

Medemption. 
Redemption  sometimes  means  simple  deliverance  ;  but  properly, 
and  always  in  its  application  to  the  work  of  Christ,  it  means  deliv- 
erance by  purchase.  This  is  plain  because  it  is  a  deliverance  not 
by  authority,  or  power,  or  teaching,  or  moral  influence,  but  by 
blood,  by  the  payment  of  a  ransom.  This  is  the  etymoloo'ical 
signification  of  the  word  a-noXvTpwa-L^,  which  is  from  Xvrpov,  a  ransom^ 
and  that  from  Xvw,  to  purchase,  e.  g.^  the  freedom  of  a  slave  or  cap- 
tive. 

1  Dogmatik,  §  401 ;  edit.  Konigsberg,  1852,  vol.  ii.  p.  159. 


478  PART  m.   Ch.  VI.  — priestly  office. 

Expiation  and  Propitiation. 
Expiation  and  propitiation  are  correlative  terms.  The  sinner,  or 
his  guilt  is  expiated  ;  God,  or  justice,  is  propitiated.  Guilt  must, 
from  the  nature  of  God,  be  visited  with  punishment,  which  is  the 
expression  of  God's  disapprobation  of  sin.  Guilt  is  expiated,  in  the 
Scriptural  representation,  covered,  by  satisfaction,  i.  g.,  by  vicari- 
ous punishment.  God  is  thereby  rendered  propitious,  i.  e.,  it  is 
now  consistent  with  his  nature  to  pardon  and  bless  the  sinner. 
Propitious  and  loving  are  not  convertible  terms.  God  is  love.  He 
loved  us  while  sinners,  and  before  .satisfaction  was  rendered.  Sat- 
isfaction or  expiation  does  not  awaken  love  in  the  divine  mind.  It 
only  renders  it  consistent  with  his  justice  that  God  should  iexercise 
his  love  towards  transgressors  of  his  law.  This  is  expressed  by  the 
Greek  verb  IXdaKOfiai,  propitium  facio.  "  To  reconcile  oneself  to 
any  one  by  expiation."  '  That  by  which  this  reconciliation  is 
effected  is  called  tAaa/xos  or  iXaa-r-qpiov.  The  effect  produced  is  that 
God  is  tAaos.  God  is  good  to  all,  fidl  of  pity  and  compassion  to 
all,  even  to  the  chief  of  sinners.  But  he  is  iXaos  only  to  those 
for  whose  sins  an  expiation  has  been  made.  That  is,  according  to 
the  Old  Testament  usage,  "  whose  sins  are  covered."  "  To  cover 
sin,"  "IS?,  is  never  used  to  express  the  idea  of  moral  purification,  or 
sanctification,  but  always  that  of  expiation.  The  means  by  which 
sin  is  said  to  be  covered,  is  not  reformation,  or  good  works,  but 
blood,  vicarious  satisfaction.  This  in  Hebrew  is  ~i^-,  that  which 
covers.  The  combination  of  these  two  ideas  led  the  LXX.  to  call 
the  cover  of  the  ark  tAao-TT^piov,  that  which  covered  or  shut  out  the 
testimony  of  the  law  against  the  sins  of  the  people,  and  thus  ren- 
dered God  propitious.  It  was  an  IXaa-rqpiov,  however,  only  because 
sprinkled  with  blood.  Men  may  philosophize  about  the  nature  of 
God,  his  relation  to  his  creatures,  and  the  terms  on  which  He  will 
forgive  sin,  and  they  may  never  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  conclusion; 
but  when  the  question  is  simply.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  on 
this  subject  ?  the  matter  is  comparatively  easy.  In  the  Old  Tes- 
tament and  in  the  New,  God  is  declared  to  be  just,  in  the  sense 
that  his  nature  demands  the  punishment  of  sin  ;  that  therefore  there 
can  be  no  remission  without  such  punishment,  vicarious  or  per- 
sonal ;  that  the  plan  of  salvation  symbolically  and  typically  exhib- 
ited in  the  Mosaic  institution,  expounded  in  the  prophets,  and 
clearly  and  variously  taught  in  the  New  Testament,  involves  the 
substitution  of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  in   the  place  of  sinners, 

1  Robinson,  Lexicon  of  the  New  TeslamenI,  in  verbo. 


§3.]  DEFINITION   OF   TERMS.  479 

who  assumed  their  obligation  to  satisfy  divine  justice,  and  that  He 
did  in  fact  make  a  full  and  perfect  satisfaction  for  sin,  bearing  the 
penalty  of  the  law  in  their  stead  ;  all  this  is  so  plain  and  undenia- 
ble that  it  has  always  been  the  faith  of  the  Church  and  is  admitted 
to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  by  the  leading  Rationalists  of 
our  day.  It  has  been  denied  only  by  those  who  are  outside  of  the 
Church,  and  therefore  not  Christians,  or  by  those  who,  instead  of 
submitting  to  the  simple  word  of  God,  feel  constrained  to  explain 
its  teachings  in  accordance  with  their  own  subjective  convictions. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SATISFACTION  OF  CHRIST. 

§  1.  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 

The  Symbols  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches  agree 
entirely  in  their  statement  of  this  doctrine.  In  the  "  Augsburg 
Confession "  ^  it  is  said,  Christus  "  sua  morte  pro  nostris  peccatis 
satisfecit."  In  the  "Apology  for  the  Augsburg  Confession  "^  it  is 
more  fully  expounded,  "  Christus,  quia  sine  peccato  subiit  pcenam 
peccati,  et  victima  pro  nobis  factus  est,  sustulit  illud  jus  legis,  ne 
accuset,  ne  damnet  hos  qui  credunt  in  ipsum,  quia  ipse  est  propiti- 
atio  pro  eis,  propter  quam  nunc  justi  reputantur.  Cum  autem  j^sti 
reputentur,  lex  non  potest  eos  accusare,  et  damnare,  etiamsi  re  ipsa 
legi  non  satisfecerint."  "  Mors  Christi  non  est  solum  satisfactio 
pro  culpa,  sed  etiam  pro  seterna  morte."  ^  "  In  propitiatore  hsec 
duo  concurrunt :  Primum,  oportet  exstare  verbum  Dei,  ex  quo 
certo  sciamus,  quod  Deus  velit  misereri  et  exaudire  invocantes  per 

hunc  propitiatorem.       Talis   exstat  de   Christo    promissio 

Alterum  est  in  propitiatore,  quod  merita  ipsius  proposita  sunt,  ut, 
quse  pro  aliis  satisfacerent,  qusB  aliis  donentur  imputatione  divina, 
ut  per  ea,  tanquam  propriis  meritis  justi  reputentur,  ut  si  quis  ami- 
cus pro  amlco  solvit  aes  alienum,  debitor  alieno  merito  tanquam 
proprio  liberatur.  Ita  Christi  merita  nobis  donantur,  ut  justi  repu- 
temur  fiducia  meritorum  Christi,  cum  in  eum  credimus,  tanquam 
propria  merita  haberemus."*  In  the  "  Form  of  Concord  "  this  doc- 
trine is  not  only  presented  but  elaborately  expounded  and  vindi- 
cated. It  is  said,^  "  Justitia  ilia,  quso  coram  Deo  fidei,  aut  creden- 
tibus,  ex  mera  gratia  imputatur,  est  obedientia,  passio  et  resurrectio 
Christi,  quibus  ille  legi  nostra  causa  satisfecit,  et  peccata  nostra 
expiavit.  Cum  enim  Christus  non  tantum  homo,  verum  Deus  et 
homo  sit,  in  una  persona  indivisa,  tam  non  fuit  legi  subjectus,  quam 
non  fuit  passioni  et  morti  (ratione  suas  personse),  obnoxius,  quia 

1  I.  iv.  2;  Hase,  Libri  SymboUci,  3d  edit.  p.  10.  2  m.  58;  Jbid.  p.  93. 

8  VI.  43;  Jbid.  p.  190.  *  ix.  17,  19;  Ibid.  p.  226. 

«  III.  14,15;  Ibid.  p.  684,  685. 


§1.]  STATEMENT   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  481 

Dominus  legis  erat.  Earn  ob  causam  ipsius  obedientia  (non  ea 
tantum,  qua  patri  paruit  in  tota  sua  passione  et  morte,  verum  etiam, 
qua  nosti'a  causa  sponte  sese  legi  subjecit,  eamque  obedientia  ilia 
sua  implevit)  nobis  ad  justitiam  imputatur,  ita,  ut  Deus  propter 
totam  obedientiam  (quam  Christus  agendo  et  patiendo,  in  vita  et 
morte  sua,  nostra  causa  Patri  suo  coelesti  prsestitit)  peccata  nobis 
remittat,  pro  bonis  et  justis  nos  reputet,  et  salute  aeterna  donet." 

The  Reformed  Confessions  are  of  like  import.  The  Second 
Helvetic  Confession  ^  says,  "  Christus  peccata  mundi  in  se  recepit 
et  sustulit,  divinaeque  justiti^e  satisfecit.  Deus  ergo  propter  solum 
Christum  passum  et  resuscitatum,  propitius  est  peccatis  nostris,  nee 
ilia  nobis  imputat."  The  Belgic  Confession  says,'-^  "Credimus, 
Jesum  Christum  summum  ilium  sacerdotem  esse, ....  qui  se  nos- 
tro  nomine  coram  Patre  ad  placandam  ipsius  iram  cum  plena  satis- 
factione  obtulit,  sistens  se  ipsum  super  altare  crucis,  et  sanguinem 
suum  pretiosum  ad  purgationem  peccatorum  nostrorum  profudit." 
The  Heidelberg  Catechism  says,^  "  Deus  vult  justitiae  satisfieri ; 
quocirca  necesse  est,  vel  per  nos,  vel  per  alium  satisfaciamus."  In 
the  following  answers  it  is  taught  that  man  cannot  satisfy  the  jus- 
tice of  God  for  himself,  nor  any  creature  for  him  ;  that  it  was 
necessary  that  He  who,  as  our  substitute,  would  make  satisfac- 
tion in  our  stead,  should  be  both  God  and  man.  In  answer  to  the 
question,*  Why  it  was  necessary  that  Christ  should  die,  it  is  said, 
"  Propterea  quod  justitiae  et  veritati  Dei  nullo  alio  pacto  pro  nos- 
tris peccatis  potuit  satisfieri,  quam  ipsa  morte  filii  Dei."  The  Hei- 
delberg Catechism  being  the  standard  of  doctrine  in  all  the  Dutch 
and  German  Reformed  churches  in  Europe  and  America,  is  one 
of  the  most  important  and  authoritative  of  the  symbols  of  the  Ref- 
ormation. 

In  the  "Formula  Consensus  Helvetica"''  it  is  said,  "Ita  Chris- 
tus vice  electorum  obedientia  mortis  suas  Deo  patri  satisfecit,  ut  in 
censum  tamen  vicariae  justitias  et  obedientiae  illius,  universa  ejus, 
quam  per  totius  vitae  suae  curriculum  legi  ....  sive  agendo  sive 

patiendo  praestitit,  obedientia  vocari  debeat Rotundo  asserit 

ore  Spiritus  Dei,  Christum  sanctissima  vita  legi  et  justitiae  divinae 
pro  nobis  satisfecisse,  et  pretium  illud,  quo  empti  sumus  Deo,  non 
in  passionibus  duntaxat,  sed  tota  ejus  vita  legi  conformata  col- 
locat." 

The  "Westminster  Confession"^  says,  "The  Lord  Jesus,  by 

1  XV.;  Niemeyer,  Collectio  Confessionum,  Leipzig,  1840,  p.  494. 

2  XXI. ;  Ibid.  p.  373.  8  xii.  Jbid.  p.  432. 

4  XL.;  J/jid.  p.  439.  5  xv.  32,  33,  Ibid.  pp.  734,  735. 

'  Chap.  viii.  §  5. 

VOL.   It.  31 


482       PART   m.     Cii.   VIL  — SATISFACTION    OF   CHRIST. 

his  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice  of  Himself,  which  He  through 
the  eternal  Spirit  once  offered  up  unto  God,  hath  fully  satisfied  the 
justice  of  his  Father;  and  purchased  not  only  reconciliation,  but 
an  everlasting  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  for  all  those 
whom  the  Father  hath  given  unto  Him." 

This,  however,  is  not  a  doctrine  peculiar  to  the  Lutheran  and 
Reformed  churches  ;  it  is  part  of  the  faith  of  the  Church  universal. 
The  Council  of  Trent  says,^  "Jesus  Christus,  cum  essemus  inimici, 
pi'opter  nimiam  caritatem  qua  dilexit  nos,  sua  sanctissima  passlone 
in  ligno  crucis  nobis  justificationem  meruit,  et  pro  nobis  Deo  patri 
satisfecit."  "Christus  Jesus,  qui  pro  peccatis  nostris  satisfecit."^ 
The  Roman  Catechism  says,^  "  Hoc  in  passione,  et  morte  Filius 
Dei  salvator  noster  spectavit,  ut  omnium  setatum  peccata  redimeret 
ac  deleret,  et  pro  eis  Patri  abunde,  cumulateque  satisfaceret." 
"  Prima  satisfactio  et  praestantissima  ilia  est,  qua  pro  scelerum 
nostrorum  ratione,  etiam  si  Deus  summo  jure  nobiscum  velit  agere, 
quidquid  a  nobis  debeatur,  cumulate  persolutum  est.  Haec  vero 
ejusmodi  esse  dicitur,  quae  nobis  Deum  propitium  et  placatum  red- 
didit, eamque  uni  Christo  domino  acceptam  ferimus,  qui  in  cruce, 
pretio  pro  peccatis  nostris  soluto,  plenissime  Deo  satisfecit."* 

§  2.   Tlie  Intrinsic  Worth  of  Chrisfs  Satisfaction. 

The  first  point  is  that  Christ's  work  was  of  the  nature  of  a  satis- 
faction, because  it  met  and  answered  all  the  demands  of  God's  law 
and  justice  against  the  sinner.  The  law  no  longer  condemns  the 
sinner  who  believes  in  Christ.  Those,  however,  whom  the  infin- 
itely holy  and  strict  law  of  God  does  not  condemn  are  entitled 
to  the  divine  fellowship  and  favour.  To  them  there  can  be  no 
condemnation.  The  work  of  Christ  was  not,  therefore,  a  mere 
substitute  for  the  execution  of  the  law,  which  God  in  his  sovereign 
mercy  saw  fit  to  accept  in  lieu  of  what  the  sinner  was  bound  to 
render.  It  had  an  inherent  worth  which  rendered  it  a  perfect 
satisfaction,  so  that  justice  has  no  further  demands.  It  is  here  as 
in  tiie  case  of  state  criminals.  If  such  an  offender  suffers  the 
penalty  which  the  law  prescribes  as  the  punishment  of  his  oflfence 
he  is  no  longer  liable  to  condemnation.  No  further  punishment  can 
justly  be  demanded  for  that  offence.  This  is  what  is  called  the 
perfection  of  Christ's  satisfaction.  It  perfectly,  from  its  own  intrin- 
sic worth,  satisfies  the  demands  of  justice.     This  is  the  point  meant 

^  Sess.  vi.  cap.  7;  Streitwolf,  Libri  SymboUci,  Gottingen,  18i6,  pp.  24,  25. 

2  Sess.  xi\'.  cap.  8;  Jbid.  p.  63. 

8  I.  V.  11;  Ibid.  pp.  155,  156. 

*  II.  V.  53  (Ixxxvii.  or  63),  Ibid.  p.  401. 


§2.]  ITS  INTRINSIC  WORTH.  483 

to  be  illustrated  when  the  work  of  Christ  is  compared  in  Scripture 
and  in  the  writings  of  theologians  to  the  payment  of  a  debt.  The 
creditor  has  no  further  claims  when  the  debt  due  to  him  is  fully  paid. 
This  perfection  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  as  already  remarked, 
is  not  due  to  his  having  suffered  either  in  kind  or  in  degree  what 
the  sinner  would  have  been  required  to  endure  ;  but  principally  to 
the  infinite  dignity  of  his  person.  He  was  not  a  mere  man,  but  God 
and  man  in  one  person.  His  obedience  and  suflPerings  were  there- 
fore the  obedience  and  sufferings  of  a  divine  person.  This  does  not 
imply,  as  the  Patripassians  in  the  ancient  Church  assumed,  and  as 
some  writers  in  modern  times  assume,  that  the  divine  nature  itself 
suffered.  This  idea  is  repudiated  alike  by  the  Latin,  Lutheran, 
and  Reformed  churches.  In  the  "  Second  Helvetic  Confession"^ 
it  is  said,  "  Minime  docemus  naturam  in  Christo  divinam  passam 
esse."  The  "Form  of  Concord  "^  teaches  the  same  thing,  quoting 
Luther,  who  says  that  our  Saviour  to  suffer  must  become  man, 
"  non  enim  in  sua  natura  Deus  mori  potest.  Postquam  autem 
Deus  et  homo  unitus  est  in  -una  persona,  recte  et  vere  dicitur: 
Deus  mortuus  est,  quando  videlicet  ille  homo  moritur,  qui  cum  Deo 
unum  quiddam,  sen  una  persona  est."  This  is  precisely  what  the 
Apostle,  in  Hebrews  ii.  14,  teaches,  when  he  says  that  He  who 
was  the  Son  of  God,  who  made  heaven  and  earth,  who  upholds  all 
things  by  the  word  of  his  mouth,  and  who  is  immutable  and  eter- 
nal, assumed  our  nature  (flesh  and  blood)  in  order  that  He  might 
die,  and  by  death  destroy  him  who  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is, 
the  devil.  Christ  is  but  one  person,  with  two  distinct  natures,  and 
therefore  whatever  can  be  predicated  of  either  nature  may  be 
predicated  of  the  person.  An  indignity  offered  to  a  man's  body  is 
offered  to  himself.  If  this  principle  be  not  correct  there  was  no 
greater  crime  in  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  than  in  unjustly  inflicting 
death  on  an  ordinary  man.  The  principle  in  question,  however,  is 
clearly  recognized  in  Scripture,  and  therefore  the  sacred  writers  do 
not  hesitate  to  say  that  God  purchased  the  Church  with  his  blood  ; 
and  that  the  Lord  of  glory  was  crucified.  Hence  such  expressions 
as  Dei  morSy  Dei  sanguis^  Dei  passio  have  the  sanction  of  Scrip- 
tural as  well  of  Church  usage.  It  follows  from  this  that  the  satis- 
faction of  Christ  has  all  the  value  which  belongs  to  the  obedience 
and  sufferings  of  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  and  his  righteousness,  as 
well  active  as  passive,  is  infinitely  meritorious.  This  is  what  the 
Apostle  clearly  teaches  in  Hebrews  ix.  13,  14  :  "  For  if  the  blood 
of  bulls  and  of  goats  ....  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh  ; 

1  XI.;  Niemeyer,  p.  485.  2  yiii.  4-1;  Hase,  p.  772. 


484       PART  III.     Ch.  VIL  —  satisfaction   OF   CHRIST. 

how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  through  (or  with) 
an  eternal  Spii'it  oiFered  himself  without  spot  to  God,  purge  your 
conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God  ?  "  The  supe- 
rior efficacy  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  thus  referred  to  the  in- 
finitely superior  dignity  of  his  person. 

It  follows  from  the  perfection  of  Christ's  satisfaction  that  it 
supersedes  and  renders  impossible  all  other  satisfactions  for  sin. 
The  sufferings  which  justified  believers  are  called  upon  to  endure 
are  not  punishments,  because  not  designed  for  the  satisfaction  of 
justice.  They  are  chastisements  intended  for  the  benefit  of  the 
suff'erer,  the  edification  of  the  Church,  and  the  glory  of  God.  In 
this  view  all  Protestant  churches  concur. 

Romish  Doctrine  of  Satisfaction. 

Romanists,  while  on  the  one  hand  they  exalt  to  the  utmost  the 
intrinsic  value  of  Christ's  satisfaction,  yet  on  the  other  hand  they 
restrict  its  application.  At  one  time,  it  was  the  prevalent  doctrine 
in  the  Latin  Church  that  the  work  of  Christ  availed  only  for  the 
pardon  of  sins  committed  before  baptism.  With  regard  to  post- 
baptismal  sins,  it  was  held  either  that  they  were  unpardonable,  or 
that  atonement  must  be  made  for  them  by  the  sinner  himself.  This 
idea  that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  avails  only  to  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  committed  before  conversion  has  been  adopted  by  many 
RationaHsts,  as  for  example  by  Bretschneider.^  He  says,  "  Fiir 
spatere  Siinden  der  Christen  gilt  das  Opfer  Christi  nicht,  sondern 
es  gelit  dem  Siinder  nur  einmal,  bei  der  Taufe,  zu  Gute."  "  The 
sacrifice  of  Christ  does  not  avail  for  the  later  sins  of  the  Christian. 
It  benefits  the  sinner  only  once,  at  his  baptism."  ^  What  is  more 
remarkable,  Dr.  Emmons,  Puritan  though  he  was,  has  very  much 
the  same  idea.  The  only  benefit  we  receive  from  Christ,  he  says, 
is  the  formveness  of  sins.  This  is  granted  when  we  believe.  After 
that,  we  ai'e  rewarded  or  punished,  not  only  according  to  but  on 
account  of  our  works.^  The  doctrine  that  post-baptismal  sins  are 
unpardonable,  having  been  rejected  as  heretical,  the  Romish  theo- 
logians adopted  the  theory  that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  availed 
only  to  the  remission  of  the  penalty  of  eternal  death ;  leaving  the 
sinner  bound  to  suffer  the  temporal  punishment  due  to  his  trans- 
gressions or  to  make  satisfaction  for  them. 

The  Romish  doctrine  of  satisfactions  arose  out  of  a  perversion  of 

1  Dogmntik,  part  ii.  ch.  vi.  2,  §§  154-158,  3d  edit.  vol.  11.  pp.  280-310. 

2  Syslematische  Entimckeliing,  §  107,  4th  edit.  p.  624. 

8   Works  of  Nathaniel  Emmons,  D.  D.,  edited  by  Jacob  Ide,  D.  D.     Boston,  1842,  vol.  v. 
Sermons  46,  47. 


§3.]  REMONSTRANT  DOCTRINE.  485 

the  penances  imposed  in  the  early  ages  upon  the  lapsed.  Those 
penances  were  satisfactions  rendered  to  the  Church  ;  that  is,  they 
were  intended  to  satisfy  the  Chui'ch  of  tlie  sincerity  of  the  offend- 
er's repentance.  When  they  came  to  be  regarded  as  satisfactions 
rendered  to  the  justice  of  God,  the  theologians  were  obliged  to 
adopt  a  theory  to  reconcile  the  Church  practice  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  infinitely  meritorious  satisfaction  of  Christ.  That  theory 
was  that  the  satisfaction  of  Clirist,  infinite  though  it  was  in  merit, 
was  designed  only  to  secure  the  remission  of  everlasting  death. 
Temporal  punishments  and  the  pains  of  purgatory  after  death  are 
still  to  be  endured,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Church,  as  satisfactions 
for  sins.  This  is  not  the  place  for  the  full  discussion  of  this  subject. 
It  is  enough  to  remark,  (1.)  That  if,  as  the  Scriptures  teach,  every 
sin  deserves  God's  wrath  and  curse,  both  in  this  life  and  in  that 
which  is  to  come,  then  it  is  out  of  all  question  for  a  sinner  to  make 
satisfaction  for  the  least  of  all  his  sins.  What  he  offers  as  the 
ground  of  pardon  needs  itself  to  be  pardoned.  This  is  so  plain  that 
Romanists  have  modified  their  theory  so  as  in  fact  to  destroy  it,  by 
teaching  that  the  satisfiiction  rendered  by  penitents  is  accepted  as 
such  only  for  Christ's  sake.  But  if  this  be  so  then  the  satisfaction 
of  Christ  is  all-sufficient,  and  is  not  confined  to  removing  the  pen- 
alty of  eternal  death.  (2.)  In  the  Bible,  the  work  of  Christ  is  said 
to  cleanse  from  all  sin.  All  other  sacrifices  and  satisfactions  are 
said  to  be  utterly  unavailing,  even  should  a  man  give  the  fruit  of 
his  body  for  the  sin  of  his  soul.  (3.)  Those  who  believe  in  Christ 
are  justified,  says  the  Apostle,  from  all  things.  They  are  not  under 
condemnation.  No  one  can  lay  anything  to  their  charge.  They 
have  peace  with  God.  (4.)  This  doctrine  of  supplementary  satis- 
faction is  derogatory  to  Christ  and  destructive  of  the  peace  of  the 
believer,  reducing  him  to  a  slavish  state,  and  putting  his  salvation 
in  the  hands  of  the  priests.  (5.)  If  Christ  be  our  only  priest  his 
work  is  the  only  satisfaction  for  sin.  All  others  are  unnecessary, 
and  every  other  is  impossible. 

§  3.  Doctrine  of  the  Scotists  and  Remonstrants. 

While  Protestants  and  the  Church  generally  have  held  the 
doctrine  that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  because  of  the  dignity  of 
his  person  and  the  nature  and  degree  of  his  sufferings  was  and  is 
infinitely  meritorious,  absolutely  perfect  from  its  intrinsic  worth, 
and  completely  efficacious  in  its  application  to  all  the  sins  of  the 
believer,  the  Scotists  in  the  Middle  Ages,  and  after  them  Grotius 
and  the  Remonstrants,  denied  that  the  work  of  Christ  had  inherent 


486       PART  III.     Ch.   Vn.  —  satisfaction   of   CHRIST. 

value  to  satisfy  divine  justice,  but  said  that  it  was  taken  as  a  satis- 
faction, acceptatione  gratuita.  The  propositions  laid  down  by 
Anselm,  in  his  epoch-making  book,  "  Cur  Deus  Homo  ?  "  were, 
"  (1.)  Quod  necessarium  fuit  hominem  redimi.  (2.)  Quod  non 
potuit  redimi  sine  satisfactione.  (3.)  Quod  facienda  erat  satisfactio 
a  Deo  homine.  (4.)  Quod  convenientior  modus  fuit  hie,  scilicet 
per  passionem  Christi."  The  argument  of  Anselm  is  founded  on 
the  assumption  that  the  pardon  of  sin  required  an  infinite  satisfac- 
tion, i.  e.,  a  satisfaction  of  infinite  merit,  which  could  only  be 
rendered  by  a  person  of  infinite  dignity.  This  principle,  and  all 
the  propositions  founded  uj)on  it.  Duns  Scotus  contested.  He 
advanced  the  opposite  princi|)le,  namely,  "  Tantum  valet  omne 
creatum  oblatum,  pro  quanto  Deus  acceptat."  Therefore  any  man 
might  have  satisfied  for  his  own  sins  ;  or  one  man  for  the  sins  of 
all  men,  had  God  seen  fit  so  to  ordain.  "  Meritum  Christi,"  he 
says,  "  fuit  finitum,  quia  a  principio  finito  essentialiter  dependens. 
Non  enim  Christus  quatenus  Deus  meruit,  sed  quatenus  homo." 
This  principle  became  the  foundation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Remon- 
strants on  the  Avork  of  Christ,  and  of  the  work  of  Grotius,  "  De 
Satisfactione  Cliristi."  Limborch  ^  says,  "  Satisfactio  Clu'isti  dici- 
tur,  qua  pro  nobis  poenas  omnes  luit  peccatis  nostris  debitas,  cas- 
que perferendo  et  exhauriendo  divina3  justitiae  satisfecit.  Verum 
ilia  sententia  nuHum  habet  in  ScriptuKa  fundamentum.  Mors 
Christi  vocatur  sacrificium  pro  peccato ;  atqui  sacrificia  non  sunt 
solutiones  debitorum,  neque  plenariae  pro  peccatis  satisfactiones ; 
sed  illis  peractis  conceditur  gratuita  peccati  remissio.  In  eo  errant 
quam  maxime,  quod  velint  redemtionis  pretium  per  omnia  aequiva- 
lens  esse  debere  miserias  ilii,  e  qua  redemtio  fit.  Redemtionis  pre- 
tium enim  constitui  solet  pro  libera  sestimatione  illius  qui  captivum 
detinet,  non  autem  solvi  pro  captivi  merito."^  Curcellaeus,  another 
distinguished  Remonstrant,  or  Arminian  theologian,  says  the  same 
thing :^  "Non  ergo,  ut  vulgo  putant,  satisfecit  [Cln-istus]  patiendo 
omnes  poenas,  quas  peccatis  nostris  merueramus.    Nam  primo,  istud 

ad  sacrificii  rationem  non  pertinet Sacrificia  enim  non  sunt 

solutiones    debitorum Secundo,    Christus    non    est    passus 

mortem  asternam  quae  erat  poena  peccato  debita,  nam  paucis  tantum 
horis  in  cruce  prependit,  et  tertia  die  resurrexit  ex  mortuis.  Imo 
etiamsi  mortem  aeternam  pertulisset,  non  videtur  satisfitcere  j)otuisse 
pro  omnibus  totius  mundi  peccatis.     Haec  enim  fuisset  tantum  una 

1  Theolof/ia  Christiana,  iii.  xxi.  6;  edit.  Amsterdam,  1700,  p.  255. 

2  Ibid.  III.  xxi.  8;  tU  supra,  p.  256. 

8   Opera  Theologica,  edit.  Amsterdam,  1675,  p.  300. 


§3.]  REMONSTRANT  DOCTRINE.  487 

mors,  quae  omnibus  mortibus,  quas  singuli  pro  suis  peccatis  merue- 
rant,  non  asquivaluisset." 

It  is  obvious  that  the  objections  presented  in  the  above  extracts 
arise  from  confounding  pecuniary  with  judicial  or  legal  satisfaction. 
There  is  an  analogy  between  them,  and,  therefore,  on  the  ground 
of  that  analogy  it  is  right  to  say  that  Christ  assumed  and  paid  our 
debts.  The  analogy  consists,  first,  in  the  effect  produced,  namely, 
the  certain  deliverance  of  those  for  whom  the  satisfaction  is  made  ; 
secondly,  that  a  real  equivalent  is  paid ;  and,  thirdly,  that  in  both 
cases  justice  requires  that  the  liberation  of  the  obligee  should  take 
place.  But,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  two  kinds  of  satisfaction 
differ,  first,  in  that  in  penal  satisfaction  the  demand  is  not  for 
any  specific  degree  or  kind  of  suffering ;  secondly,  that  while  the 
value  of  pecuniary  satisfaction  is  independent  entirely  of  the  person 
by  whom  the  payment  is  made,  in  the  other  case  everything  de- 
pends on  the  dignity  of  him  by  whom  the  satisfaction  is  rendered ; 
and,  thirdly,  that  the  benefits  of  a  penal  satisfaction  are  conferred 
according  to  the  terms  or  conditions  of  the  covenant  in  pursuance 
of  which  it  is  offered  and  accepted. 

The  principle  that  a  thing  avails  for  whatever  God  chooses  to 
take  it,  which  is  the  fnindation  of  the  doctrine  that  Christ's  work 
was  not  a  satisfaction  in  virtue  of  its  intrinsic  worth  but  only  by 
the  gracious  acceptance  of  God,  cannot  be  true.     For,  — 

1.  It  amounts  to  saying  that  there  is  no  truth  in  anything.  God 
may  (if  such  language  may  be  pardoned)  take  anything  for  any- 
thing; a  whole  for  a  part,  or  a  part  for  the  whole;  truth  for  error,  or 
error  for  truth  ;  right  for  wrong,  or  wrong  for  right ;  the  blood  of  a 
goat  for  the  blood  of  the  Eternal  Son  of  God.  This  is  impossible. 
The  nature  of  God  is  immutable,  —  immutable  reason,  truth,  and 
goodness  ;  and  his  nature  determines  his  will  and  his  judgments. 
Therefore  it  is  impossible  that  He  should  take  that  to  be  satisfac- 
tion which  is  not  really  such. 

2.  The  principle  in  question  involves  the  denial  of  the  necessity 
of  the  work  of  Christ.  It  is  inconceivable  that  God  should  send 
his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world  to  suffer  and  die  if  the  same 
end  could  have  been  accomplished  in  any  other  way.  If  every 
man  could  atone  for  his  own  sins,  or  one  man  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world,  then  Christ  is  dead  in  vain. 

3.  If  this  doctrine  be  true  then  it  is  not  true  that  it  is  impossible 
that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away  sins.  If 
every  creatum  ohlatum  tantum  valet,  pro  quanto  Deus  acceptat, 


488       PART  III.     Cii.   VII.— SATISFACTION   OF   CHRIST. 

then  why  might  not  the  Okl  Testament  sacrifices  have  sufficed  to 
take  away  sin  ?  What  rendered  them  inefficacious  was  their  own 
inlierent  worthlessness.  And  what  renders  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ  effectual  is  its  own  inherent  value. 

4.  The  Scriptures  teach  the  necessity  of  the  death  of  Christ,  not 
only  by  implication,  but  also  by  direct  assertion.  In  Galatians  ii. 
21,  the  Apostle  says,  "  If  righteousness  come  by  the  law,  then  Christ 
is  dead  in  vain."  This  means  that  if  the  righteousness  necessary 
for  the  salvation  of  men  could  have  been  secured  in  any  other  way 
the  whole  work  of  Christ  is  a  matter  of  supererogation,  an  unneces- 
sary expenditure  of  what  was  beyond  all  price.  Still  more  expHcit 
is  his  language  in  Galatians  iii.  21 :  "  If  there  had  been  a  law  given 
which  could  have  given  life,  verily  rigliteousness  should  liave  been 
by  the  law."  It  is  here  asserted  that  if  any  other  method  could 
have  availed  to  save  sinners  it  would  have  been  adopted.  Our 
Lord,  in  Luke  xxlv.  26,  asks,  "  Ought  not  Christ  to  have  suffi^red 
these  things  ? "  There  was  an  obligation,  or  necessity,  which 
demanded  his  sufferings  if  the  salvation  of  sinners  was  to  be  accom- 
plished. The  Apostle  again,  in  Hebrews  ii.  10,  says,  "  It  became 
him,  for  whom  are  all  things,  and  by  whom  are  all  things,  in  bring- 
ing many  sons  unto  glory,  to  make  the  captain  of  their  salvation 
perfect  through  suffierings."  There  was  a  necessity  for  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ,  and  that  necessity  was  not  merely  governmental, 
nor  for  the  accumulating  moral  power  over  the  sinner's  heart,  but 
it  arose  out  of  the  nature  of  God.  It  became  Him.  It  was  con- 
sonant with  his  perfections  and  character,  which  is  the  highest 
conceivable  kind  of  necessity. 

5.  What  the  Scriptures  teach  of  the  justice  of  God  leads  to  the 
same  conclusion.  Justice  is  a  form  of  moral  excellence.  It  belongs 
to  the  nature  of  God.  It  demands  the  punishment  of  sin.  If  sin 
be  pardoned  it  can  be  pardoned  in  consistency  with  the  divine 
justice  only  on  the  ground  of  a  forensic  penal  satisfaction.  There- 
fore the  Apostle  says  (Romans  iii.  25),  that  God  sent  forth  Christ 
as  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  in  order  that  God  might 
be  just  in  justifying  the  ungodly. 

6.  The  Scriptures,  in  representing  the  gift  of  Christ  as  the  high- 
est conceivable  exhibition  of  the  divine  love,  do  thereby  teach, 
first,  that  the  end  to  be  accompHshed  was  worthy  of  the  sacrifice  ; 
and,  secondly,  that  the  sacrifice  was  necessary  to  the  attainment 
of  the  end.  If  the  end  could  have  been  otherwise  attained  there 
would  have  been  no  exhibition  of  love  in  the  gift  of  Christ  for  its 
accomplishment. 


§  4.]  SATISFACTION  RENDERED  TO  JUSTICE.  489 

7.  All  that  the  Bible  teaches  of  the  truth  of  God  ;  of  the  immu- 
tability of  the  law;  of  the  necessity  of  faith  ;  of  the  uselessness  and 
wotthlessness  of  all  other  sacrifices  for  sin  ;  and  of  the  impossibility 
of  salvation  except  through  the  work  of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God, 
precludes  the  idea  that  his  satisfaction  was  not  necessary  to  our 
salvation,  or  tliat  any  other  means  could  have  accomplished  the 
object.  And  if  thus  absolutely  necessary,  it  must  be  that  nothing 
else  has  worth  enough  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  God's  law.  It  is 
the  language  and  spirit  of  the  whole  Bible,  and  of  every  believing 
heart  in  relation  to  Christ  that  his  "  blood  alone  has  power  suffi- 
cient to  atone." 

§  4.  Satisfaction  rendered  to  Justice. 

The  second  point  involved  in  the  Scriptural  doctrine  concerning 
the  satisfaction  of  Christ  is,  that  it  was  a  satisfaction  to  the  justice 
of  God.  This  is  asserted  in  all  the  Confessions  above  cited.  And 
by  justice  is  not  meant  simply  general  rectitude  or  Tightness  of 
character  and  action  ;  nor  simply  rectoral  justice,  which  consists  in 
a  due  regard  to  the  rights  and  interests  of  subjects  in  relation  to 
rulers ;  much  less  does  it  mean  commutative  justice  or  honesty. 
It  is  admitted  that  the  Hebrew  word  P'^^Vj  the  Greek  StKatos,  the 
Latin /ms^ms,  the  English  just  or  righteous,  and  their  cognates,  are 
used  in  all  these  senses  both  in  Scripture  and  in  ordinary  life.  But 
they  are  also  used  to  express  the  idea  of  distributive  or  retributive 
justice  ;  that  form  of  moral  excellence  which  demands  the  righteous 
distribution  of  rewards  and  punishments  which  renders  it  certain, 
under  the  government  of  God,  that  obedience  will  be  rewarded  and 
sin  punished.  This  is  also  properly  called,  especially  in  its  relation 
to  sin,  vindicatory  justice,  because  it  vindicates  and  maintains  the 
right.  Vindicatory  and  vindictive,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  this 
latter  term,  are  not  synonymous.  It  is  a  common  mistake  or  mis- 
representation to  confound  these  two  words,  and  to  represent  those 
who  ascribe  to  God  the  attribute  of  vindicatory  justice  as  regarding 
Him  as  a  vindictive  being,  thirsting  for  revenge.  There  is  as  much 
difference  between  the  words  and  the  ideas  they  express  as  there 
is  between  a  righteous  judge  and  a  malicious  murderer.  The 
question  then  is.  Does  the  attribute  of  vindicatory  justice  belong 
to  God  ?  Does  his  infinite  moral  excellence  require  that  sin 
should  be  punished  on  account  of  its  own  inherent  demerit,  irre- 
spective of  the  good  effects  which  may  flow  from  such  punishment? 
Or  is  justice  what  Leibnitz  defines  it  to  be,  "  Benevolence  guided 
by  wisdom."     It  is  admitted  that  the  work  of  Christ  was  in  some 


490       PART  III.     Ch.    VII. -satisfaction   OF   CHRIST. 

sense  a  satisfaction  ;  that  it  satisfied  in  some  way  the  exigencies 
of  the  case,  or  the  conditions  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  man.  It 
is  further,  at  least  generally,  admitted  that  it  was  in  some  sense  a 
satisfaction  of  justice.  This  being  the  case,  everything  depends 
on  what  is  meant  by  justice.  If  justice  is  "  benevolence  guided 
by  wisdom,"  or  a  benevolent  disposition  on  the  part  of  a  ruler  to 
sustain  his  authority  as  a  means  of  promoting  the  happiness  of  his 
kingdom,  then  the  work  of  Christ  is  one  thing.  It  may  be  simply 
a  means  of  reformation,  or  of  moral  impression.  But  if  justice  is 
that  perfection  of  the  divine  nature  which  renders  it  necessary  that 
the  righteous  be  rewarded  and  the  wicked  punished,  then  the  work 
of  Christ  must  be  a  satisfaction  of  justice  in  that  sense  of  the  term. 
The  question,  therefore,  concerning  "the  nature  of  the  atonement" 
depends  on  the  question  whether  there  is  in  God  such  an  attribute 
as  distributive  or  vindicatory  justice.  This  question  has  already 
been  discussed  when  treating  of  the  attributes  of  God.  All  that  is 
necessary  here  is  a  brief  recapitulation  of  the  arguments  there 
presented,  — 

1.  We  ascribe  intelligence,  knowledge,  power,  holiness,  goodness, 
and  truth  to  God,  (a.)  Because  these  are  perfections  which  belong 
to  our  own  nature,  and  must  of  necessity  belong  to  Him  in  whose 
image  we  were  created.  (5.)  Because  these  attributes  are  all  man- 
ifested in  his  works,  (c.)  Because  they  are  all  revealed  in  his 
Word.  On  the  same  grounds  we  ascribe  to  God  justice  ;  that  is, 
the  moral  excellence  which  determines  Him  to  punish  sin  and 
reward  righteousness.  The  argument  in  this  case  is  not  only  of 
the  same  kind,  but  of  the  same  cogency.  We  are  just  as  conscious 
of  a  sense  of  justice  as  we  are  of  intelligence  or  of  power.  This  con- 
sciousness belongs  to  man  as  man,  to  all  men  in  all  ages  and  under 
all  circumstances.  It  must,  therefore,  belong  to  the  original  con- 
stitution of  their  nature.  Consequently  it  is  as  certain  that  God  is 
just,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  word,  as  that  He  is  intelligent 
or  holy. 

2.  The  Spirit  of  God  in  convincing  a  man  of  sin  convinces  him 
of  guilt  as  well  as  of  pollution.  That  is.  He  convinces  him  of  his 
desert  of  punishment.  But  a  sense  of  a  desert  of  punishment  is  a 
conviction  that  we  ought  to  be  punished  ;  and  this  is  of  necessity 
attended  with  the  persuasion  that,  under  the  righteous  government 
of  God,  the  punishment  of  sin  is  inevitable  and  necessary.  They 
who  sin,  the  Apostle  says,  know  the  righteous  judgment  of  God, 
that  they  are  worthy  of  death. 

3.  The  justice  of  God  is  revealed  in  his  works,  (a.)  In  the  eon- 


S4.]  SATISFACTION   RENDERED   TO  JUSTICE.  491 

stitution  of  our  nature.  The  connection  between  sin  and  misery  is 
so  intimate  that  many  have  gone  to  the  extreme  of  teaching  that 
there  is  no  other  punishment  of  sin  but  its  natural  effects.  This  is 
contrary  to  fact  as  well  as  to  Scripture.  Nevertheless  it  is  true 
that  to  be  "  carnally  minded  is  death,"  that  is,  damnation.  There 
is  no  help  for  it.  It  is  vain  to  say  that  God  will  not  punish  sin 
when  He  has  made  sin  and  its  punishment  inseparable.  The 
absence  of  light  is  darkness  ;  the  absence  of  life  is  deatii ;  (5.)  It 
is,  however,  not  only  in  the  constitution  of  our  nature,  but  also  in 
all  his  works  of  providence,  that  God  has  revealed  his  purpose  to 
punish  sin.  The  deluge;  the  destruction  of  the  cities  of  the  plain; 
the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem  and  the  dispersion  and  long-continued 
degradation  of  the  Jewish  people;  the  ruins  of  Nineveh,  of  Baby- 
lon, of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  of  Egypt ;  and  the  present  condition  of 
many  of  the  nations  of  the  earth,  as  well  as  the  general  administra- 
tion of  the  divine  government,  are  proof  enough  that  God  is  an 
avenger,  that  He  will  in  no  wise  spare  the  guilty. 

4.  The  Scriptures  so  constantly  and  so  variously  teach  that  God 
is  just,  that  it  is  impossible  to  present  adequately  their  testimony 
on  the  subject,  (a.)  Wo  have  the  direct  assertions  of  Scripture. 
Almost  the  first  words  which  God  spoke  to  Adam  were,  "  In  the 
day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die."  The  ano-els 
who  sinned  are  reserved  in  chains  unto  the  judgment  of  the  great 
day.  Death  is  declared  to  be  the  wages,  i.  e.,  the  proper  recom- 
pense of  sin,  which  justice  demands  that  it  should  receive.  God  is 
declared  to  be  a  consuming  fire.  Men  can  no  more  secure  them- 
selves from  the  punishment  of  their  sins,  by  their  own  devices,  than 
they  can  save  themselves  from  a  raging  conflagration  by  a  coverino* 
of  chaff;  The  penalty  of  the  law  is  as  much  a  revelation  of  the 
nature  of  God  as  its  precept  is.  As  He  caimot,  consistently  with 
his  perfections,  exonerate  men  from  the  obligation  of  obedience, 
so  He  cannot  allow  them  to  sin  with  impunity.  It  is,  therefore, 
declared  that  He  will  reward  every  man  according  to  his  works. 
(5.)  All  the  divinely  ordained  institutions  of  religion,  whether 
Patriarchal,  Mosaic,  or  Christian,  were  founded  on  the  assumption 
of  the  justice  of  God,  and  were  designed  to  impress  that  great  truth 
on  the  minds  of  men.  They  take  for  granted  that  men  are  sinners; 
and  that,  being  sinners,  they  need  expiation  for  their  guilt  as  well 
as  moral  purification,  in  order  to  salvation.  Sacrifices,  therefore, 
were  instituted  from  the  beginning  to  teach  the  necessity  of  expia- 
tion and  to  serve  as  prophetic  types  of  the  only  effectual  expiation 
which,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  was  to  be  offered  for  the  sins  of  men. 


492       PART  III.     Ch.   VII.  —  SATISFACTION   OF   CHRIST. 

Witliout  the  shedding  of  blood  (i.  e.,  without  vicarious  punishment) 
there  is  no  remission.  This  is  recorded,  not  merely  as  a  fact  under 
the  Mosaic  dispensation,  but  as  embodying  a  principle  valid  under 
all  dispensations.  It  is  not,  therefore,  this  or  that  declaration  of 
Scripture,  or  this  or  that  institution  which  must  be  explained  away 
if  the  justice  of  God  be  denied,  but  the  whole  form  and  structure 
of  the  relicrion  of  the  Bible.  That  religion  as  the  relimon  for  sin- 
ners  rests  on  the  assumption  of  the  necessity  of  expiation.  This  is 
its  corner-stone,  and  tlie  whole  fabric  falls  into  ruin  if  that  stone  be 
removed.  That  God  cannot  pardon  sin  without  a  satisfaction  to 
justice,  and  that  He  cannot  have  fellowship  with  the  unholy,  are 
the  two  great  truths  which  are  revealed  in  the  constitution  of  our 
nature  as  well  as  in  the  Scriptures,  and  Avhich  are  recognized  in  all 
forms  of  religion,  human  or  divine.  It  is  because  the  demands  of 
justice  are  met  by  the  work  of  Christ,  that  his  gospel  is  the  power 
of  God  unto  salvation,  and  that  it  is  so  unspeakably  precious  to 
those  whom  the  Spirit  of  God  has  convinced  of  sin.  (c.)  We 
accordingly  find  that  the  plan  of  salvation  as  unfolded  in  the  New 
Testament  is  founded  on  the  assumption  that  God  is  just.  The 
argument  of  the  sacred  writers  is  this :  The  wrath  of  God  is 
revealed  against  all  unrighteousness  and  ungodliness  of  men.  That 
is,  God  is  determined  to  punish  sin.  All  men,  whether  Gentiles  or 
Jews,  are  sinners.  Therefore  the  whole  world  is  guilty  before 
God.  Hence  no  man  can  be  justified  by  works.  It  is  a  contradic- 
tion to  say  that  those  who  are  under  condemnation  for  their  char- 
acter and  conduct  can  be  justified  on  the  ground  of  anything  they 
are  or  can  do.  There  is  no  force  in  this  argument  unless  there  is  a 
necessity  for  the  punishment  of  sin.  Human  sovereigns  pardon 
criminals;  earthly  parents  forgive  their  children.  If  the  penalty 
of  the  law  could  be  as  easily  remitted  in  the  divine  government 
then  it  would  not  follow  from  the  fact  that  all  men  are  sinners  that 
they  cannot  be  forgiven  on  the  ground  of  their  repentance  and 
reformation.  The  Scriptures,  however,  assume  that  if  a  man  sins 
he  must  die.  On  this  assumption  all  their  representations  and 
arguments  are  founded.  Hence  the  plan  of  salvation  which  the 
Bible  reveals  supposes  tiiat  the  justice  of  God  which  renders  the 
punishment  of  sin  necessary  has  been  satisfied.  Men  can  be  par- 
doned and  restored  to  the  favour  of  God,  because  Clirist  was  set 
forth  as  an  expiation  for  their  sins,  through  faith  in  his  blood; 
because  He  was  made  a  curse  for  us ;  because  He  died,  the  just  for 
the  unjust ;  because  He  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree ; 
and  because  the  penalty  due  to  us  was  laid  on  Him.     It  is  clear, 


§  5.]      SATISFACTION  RENDERED   TO   THE  DIVINE   LAW.     493 

therefore,  that  tlie  Scriptures  recognize  the  truth  that  God  is  just, 
in  the  sense  that  He  is  determined  by  his  moral  excellence  to 
punish  all  sin,  and  therefore  that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  which 
secures  the  pardon  of  sinners  is  rendered  to  the  justice  of  God.  Its 
primary  and  principal  design  is  neither  to  make  a  moral  impression 
upon  the  offenders  themselves,  nor  to  operate  didactically  on  other 
intelHgent  creatures,  but  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  justice  ;  so  that 
God  can  be  just  in  justifying  the  ungodly. 

§  5.   The  Work  of  Christ  Satisfies  the  Demands  of  the  Law. 

A  third  point  involved  in  tlie  Church  doctrine  on  the  work  of 
Christ,  is  that  it  is  a  satisfaction  to  the  divine  law.  This  indeed 
may  seem  to  be  included  under  the  foregoing  head.  If  a  satisfac- 
tion to  justice,  it  must  be  a  satisfaction  to  law.  But  in  the  ordi- 
nary use  of  the  terms,  the  word  law  is  more  comprehensive  than 
justice.  To  satisfy  justice  is  to  satisfy  the  demand  which  justice 
makes  for  the  punishment  of  sin.  But  the  law  demands  far  more 
than  the  punishment  of  sin,  and  therefore  satisfaction  to  the  law 
includes  more  than  the  satisfaction  of  vindicatory  justice.  In  its 
relation  to  the  law  of  God  the  Scriptural  doctrine  concerning  the 
work  of  Christ  includes  the  following  points :  — 

1.  The  law  of  God  is  immutable.  It  can  neither  be  abroo;ated 
nor  dispensed  with.  This  is  true  both  as  respects  its  precepts  and 
penalty.  Such  is  the  nature  of  God  as  holy,  that  He  cannot  cease 
to  require  his  rational  creatures  to  be  holy.  It  can  never  cease  to 
be  obligatory  on  them  to  love  and  obey  God.  And  such  is  the 
nature  of  God  as  just,  that  He  cannot  cease  to  condemn  sin,  and 
therefore  all  those  who  are  guilty  of  sin. 

2.  Our  relation  to  the  law  is  two-fold,  federal  and  moral.  It  is 
of  the  nature  of  a  covenant  prescribing  the  conditions  of  life.  It 
says,  "  Ye  shall  keep  my  statutes  and  my  judgments  ;  which  if  a 
man  do,  he  shall  live  in  them."  And,  "  Cursed  is  every  one  that 
continueth  not  in  all  things  which  are  written  in  the  book  of  the 
law  to  do  them." 

3.  From  this  federal  relation  to  the  law  we  are,  under  the  gos- 
pel, delivered.  We  are  no  longer  bound  to  be  free  from  all  sin, 
and  to  render  perfect  obedience  to  the  law,  as  the  condition  of  sal- 
vation. If  this  were  not  the  case,  no  flesh  living  could  be  saved. 
We  are  not  under  law  but  under  grace. 

4.  This  deliverance  from  the  law  is  not  effected  by  its  abroga- 
tion, or  by  lowering  its  demands,  but  by  the  work  of  Christ.  He 
was  made  under  the  law  that  He  might  redeem  those  who  were 
under  the  law. 


494       PART  III.    Ch.   Vll.  —  SATISFACTION   OF  CHRIST. 

5.  The  work  of  Christ  was  therefore  of  the  nature  of  a  satisfac- 
tion to  the  demands  of  the  law.  By  his  obedience  and  sufferings, 
by  his  whole  righteousness,  active  and  passive,  He,  as  our  repre- 
sentative and  substitute,  did  and  endured  all  that  the  law  demands. 

6.  Those,  who  by  faith  receive  this  righteousness,  and  trust  upon 
it  for  justification,  are  saved  ;  and  receive  the  renewing  of  their 
Avhole  nature  into  the  imaw  of  God.  Those  who  refuse  to  submit 
to  this  righteousness  of  God,  and  go  about  to  establish  their  own 
righteousness,  are  left  under  the  demands  of  the  law  ;  they  are  re- 
quired to  be  free  from  all  sin,  or  having  sinned,  to  bear  the  penalty. 

Proof  of  the  Immutability/  of  the  Law. 

The  principles  above  stated  are  not  arbitrarily  assumed  ;  they 
are  not  deductions  from  any  a  priori  maxims  or  axioms  ;  they  are 
not  the  constituent  elements  of  a  humanly  constructed  theory ; 
they  are  not  even  the  mere  obiter  dicta  of  inspired  men  ;  they  are 
the  principles  wliich  the  sacred  writers  not  only  announce  as  true, 
but  on  which  they  argue,  and  which  they  employ  in  the  construc- 
tion of  that  system  of  doctrine  which  they  present  as  the  object  of 
faith  and  ground  of  hope  to  fallen  men.  The  only  legitimate  way 
therefore  of  combating  these  principles,  is  to  prove,  not  that  they 
fail  to  satisfy  the  reason,  the  feelings,  or  the  imagination,  or  that 
they  are  incumbered  with  this  or  that  difficulty  ;  but  that  they  are 
not  Scriptural.  If  the  sacred  writers  do  announce  and  embrace 
them,  then  they  are  true,  or  we  have  no  solid  ground  on  which 
to  rest  our  hopes  for  eternity. 

The  Scriptural  character  of  these  principles  being  the  only  ques- 
tion of  real  importance,  appeal  must  be  made  at  once  to  the  Word 
of  God.  Throughout  the  Scriptures,  the  immutability  of  the  di- 
vine law  ;  the  necessity  of  its  demands  being  satisfied  ;  the  impos- 
sibility of  sinners  making  that  satisfaction  for  themselves  ;  the  possi- 
bility of  its  being  rendered  by  substitution  ;  and  that  a  wonderfully 
constituted  person,  could  and  would,  and  in  fact  has,  accomplished 
this  work  in  our  behalf,  are  the  great  constituent  principles  of  the 
religion  of  the  Bible.  As  the  revelation  contained  in  the  Scrip- 
tures has  been  made  in  a  progressive  form,  we  find  all  these  prin- 
ci))les  culminating  in  their  full  development  in  the  later  writings 
of  the  New  Testament.  In  St.  Paul's  epistle  to  the  Romans,  for 
example,  the  following  positions  are  assumed  and  established: 
(1.)  The  law  must  be  fulfilled.  (2.)  It  demands  jierfect  obedi- 
ence ;  and,  in  case  of  transgression,  the  penalty  of  death.  (3.)  No 
fallen  man  can  fulfil  those  conditions,  or  satisfy  the  demands  of  the 


§6.]  PROOF   OF  THE  DOCTRINE.  495 

law.  (4.)  Christ,  the  Eternal  Son  of  God,  clothed  in  our  nature, 
has  made  this  satisfaction  to  law  for  us.  (5.)  We  are  thus  freed 
from  the  law.  We  are  not  under  law,  but  under  grace.  (6.)  All 
that  is  now  required  of  us  is  faith  in  Christ.  To  those  who  are  in 
Him  there  is  no  condemnation.  (7.)  By  his  obedience  we  are 
constituted  righteous,  and,  being  thus  reconciled  to  God,  we  be- 
come partakers  of  the  holy  and  immortal  life  of  Christ,  and  are 
delivered  not  only  from  the  penalty,  but  from  the  power  of  sin, 
and  made  the  sons  and  heirs  of  God.  (8.)  The  great  condemning 
sin  of  men  under  the  gospel,  is  rejecting  the  righteousness  and  Sj)irit 
of  Christ,  and  insisting  either  tiiat  they  need  no  Saviour,  or  that 
they  can  in  some  way  save  themselves ;  that  they  can  satisfy  all 
God's  just  demands,  and  deliver  themselves  from  the  power  of  sin. 
If  the  foregoing  principles  are  eliminated  from  the  Pauline  epistles, 
their  whole  life  and  power  are  gone.  And  Paul  assures  us  that  he 
received  his  doctrines,  not  from  men,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus 
Clirist.  It  is  against  this  rock,  —  the  substitution  of  Christ  in  the 
place  of  sinners ;  his  making  a  full  satisfaction  to  the  justice  and 
law  of  God,  thus  working  out  for  us  a  perfect  righteousness,  by 
which  we  may  be  justified,  —  that  the  assaults  of  philosopliy,  falsely 
so  called,  and  of  heresy  in  all  its  forms  have  been  directed  from  the 
beginning.  This  it  is  that  the  Gnostics  and  New  Platonists  in 
the  first  centuries;  tlie  Scotists  and  Franciscans  during  the  Middle 
Ages  ;  the  Socinians  and  Remonstrants  at,  and  after  the  Reforma- 
tion ;  and  Rationalists  and  the  speculative  pliilosophy  of  our  own 
age,  have  striven  to  overthrow.  But  it  remains,  what  it  ever  has 
been,  the  foundation  of  the  faith,  hope,  and  life  of  the  Church. 

§  6.  Proof  of  the  Doctrine. 

The  Scriptural  evidence  in  support  of  this  great  doctrine,  as  far 
as  it  can  well  be  presented  within  reasonable  limits,  has  already,  in 
great  measure,  been  exhibited,  in  the  statement  and  vindication  of 
the  several  elements  which  it  includes. 

It  has  been  shown,  (1.)  That  the  work  of  Christ  for  our  salva- 
tion, was  a  real  satisfaction  of  infinite  inherent  dignity  and  worth. 
(2.)  That  it  was  a  satisfaction  not  to  commutative  justice  (as 
paying  a  sum  of  money  would  be),  nor  to  the  rectoral  justice  or 
benevolence  of  God,  but  to  his  distributive  and  vindicatory  justice 
which  renders  necessary  the  punishment  of  sin  ;  and  (3.)  That  it 
was  a  satisfaction  to  the  law  of  God,  meeting  its  demands  of  a  per- 
fect righteousness  for  the  justification  of  sinners.  If  these  points 
be  admitted,  the  Churclt  doctrine  concerning  the  satisfaction,  or 


496       PART  III.    Ch.  VII.  — satisfaction   OF   CHRIST. 

atonement  of  Christ,  is  admitted  in  all  that  is  essential  to  its  intee- 
rity.  It  remains,  therefore,  only  to  refer  to  certain  classes  of  pas- 
sages and  modes  of  representation  pervading  the  Scriptures,  which 
assume  or  assert  the  truth  of  all  the  principles  above  stated. 

Christ  saves  us  as  our  Priest. 

Christ  is  said  to  save  men  as  a  priest.  It  is  not  by  the  mere  ex- 
ercise of  power,  nor  by  instruction  and  mental  illumination  ;  nor  by 
any  objective,  persuasive,  moral  influence  ;  nor  by  any  subjective 
operation,  whether  natural  or  supernatural,  whether  intelligible  or 
mystical,  but  by  acting  for  them  the  part  of  a  representative,  sub- 
stitute, propitiator,  and  intercessor.  It  was  in  the  Old  Testament 
foretold  that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  both  priest  and  king ;  that  he 
was  to  be  a  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec.  In  the  New 
Testament,  and  especially  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  is 
devoted  almost  exclusively  to  the  exhibition  of  the  priestly  char- 
acter and  work  of  Christ,  it  is  taught,  — 

1.  That  a  priest  is  a  substitute  or  representative,  appointed  to 
do  for  sinners  what  they  could  not  do  for  themselves.  Their  guilt 
and  pollution  forbid  their  access  to  God.  Some  one,  therefore, 
must  be  authorized  to  appear  before  God  in  their  behalf,  and  effect 
a  reconciliation  of  God  to  sinners. 

2.  That  this  reconciliation  can  only  be  effected  by  means  of  an 
expiation  for  sin.  The  guilt  of  sin  can  be  removed  in  no  other 
way.  Without  the  shedding  of  blood,  there  is  no  remission.  A 
priest,  therefore,  is  one  appointed  for  men  (^'.  e.,  to  act  in  their  be- 
half), to  offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sin. 

3.  That  this  expiation  was  effected  by  the  substitution  of  a  vic- 
tim in  the  place  of  the  sinner,  to  die  in  his  stead,  i.  e.,  in  Scriptural 
language,  "to  bear  his  sins."  "  Guilt,"  says  Ebrard,  in  a  passage 
already  quoted,  "  can  be  removed  only  by  being  actually  punished, 
i.  e.,  expiated.  Either  the  sinner  himself  must  bear  the  pianish- 
ment,  or  a  substitute  must  be  found,  which  can  assume  the  guilt, 
bear  the  penalty,  and  give  the  freedom  from  guilt  or  righteousness 
thus  secured,  to  the  offender."  ^  This  he  gives  as  the  fundamental 
idea  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

4.  Such  being  the  nature  of  the  priesthood  and  the  way  in  which 
a  priest  saves  those  for  whom  he  acts,  the  Apostle  shows,  first,  with 
regard  to  the  priests  under  the  old  economy,  that  such  was  the 
method,  ordained  by  God,  by  which  the  remission  of  ceremonial 
sins  and  restoration  to  the  j)rivileges  of  the  theocracy,  were  to  be 

1  Dogmalik,  ii.,  iii.  1,  §  401.     Konigsberg,  1852,  vol.  ii.  p.  159. 


§6.]  PROOF   OF  THE   DOCTRINE.  497 

secured  ;  and  secondly,  that  the  victims  then  offered,  having  no 
inherent  dignity  or  wortli,  could  not  take  away  sin  ;  they  could  not 
purge  the  conscience  from  the  sense  of  guilt,  or  bring  to  the  end 
contemplated  (TeAeitGo-at)  those  for  whom  they  were  oifered,  and 
hence  had  to  be  continually  repeated.     In  Hebrews  ix.  9,  it  is  said 

owpd.  T€   Ktti  OvaMi   ....   jxrj  Swa/xcrai   Kara  cweiSr^crtv  TcA-eiwcrai  rov   Xa- 

Tpcvovra,  i,  e.,  says  Robinson,  "  which  could  never  make  full  expi.i- 
tion  for  the  bringer,  so  as  to  satisfy  his  conscience." 

5.  The  Aaronic  priesthood  and  sacrifices  were,  therefore,  tempo- 
rary, being  the  mere  types  and  shadows  of  the  true  priest  and  the 
real  sacrifice,  promised  fi'om  the  beginning. 

6.  Christ,  the  Eternal  Son  of  God,  assumed  our  nature  in  order 
that  He  mighty  be  a  merciful  and  faithful  high  priest,  to  make 
reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the  people.  That  is,  to  make  expia- 
tion for  sin.  The  word  used  is  iXao-Ko/^at,  propitium  reddere  ;  which 
in  the  Sej)tuagint,  is  the  substitute  for  "i^ps  (to  cover  guilty,  to  hide 
sin  from  the  sight  of  God.  In  the  New  Testament,  as  in  the  Septu- 
agint,  IXda-KOfxaL  is  the  special  term  for  sacerdotal  expiation,  and  is 
not  to  be  confounded  with  aTroKaTaAAarrco-^ai,  to  reconcile.  The 
latter  is  the  efi:ect  of  the  former  ;  reconciliation  is  secured  by  ex- 
piation. 

7.  Christ  is  proved,  especially  in  Hebrews  v.,  to  be  a  real  priest ; 
first,  because  He  has  all  the  qualifications  for  the  office.  He  was  a 
man,  was  a  substitute,  had  a  sacrifice,  and  was  able  to  sympathize 
with  his  people ;  secondly,  because  He  was  called  of  God  to  the 
priesthood,  as  was  Aaron  ;  thirdly,  because  He  actually  discharged 
all  the  functions  of  the  office. 

8.  The  sacrifice  which  this  great  high  priest  offered  in  our  be- 
half, was  not  the  blood  of  irrational  animals,  but  his  own  most 
precious  blood. 

9.  This  one  sacrifice  has  perfected  forever  (rcreAeituKe!',  made  a 
perfect  expiation  for)  them  that  are  sanctified.      (Hebrews  x.  14.) 

10.  This  sacrifice  has  superseded  all  others.  No  other  is  needed; 
and  no  other  is  possible. 

11.  Those  who  reject  this  method  of  salvation  certainly  perish. 
To  them  there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins.  (Hebrews  x. 
26.) 

It  can  hardly  be  questioned  that  this  is  a  correct,  although  feeble 
statement  of  the  leading  ideas  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  With 
this  agree  all  other  representations  of  the  Scriptures  both  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  in  the  New,  and  therefore  if  we  adhere  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the   Bible  we  mvist   believe  that  Christ  saves  us,  not  by 


498       PART  III.    Ch.   VII.  — satisfaction   OF   CHRIST. 

power,  or  by  moral  influence,  but  as  a  priest,  by  offering  Himself  as 
an  expiatory  sacrifice  for  our  sins.  To  deny  this  ;  to  explain  away 
these  express  teachings  of  the  Scriptures,  as  mere  accommodations 
to  the  modes  of  thought  prevalent  in  the  age  of  the  Apostles;  or 
to  substitute  modern  ideas  "of  the  nature  of  sacrifices,  for  those  of 
the  Bible  and  of  the  whole  ancient  world  ;  or  to  attempt  to  get  at 
the  philosophical  truth  inclosed  in  these  Scriptural  forms,  while  we 
reject  the  forms  themselves,  are  only  different  ways  of  substituting 
our  thoughts  for  God's  thoughts,  our  way  of  salvation  for  God's 
way.  If  the  owdinary  authoritative  rules  of  interpretation  are  to  be 
adhered  to,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  Scriptures  teach  that  Christ 
saves  us  as  a  priest  by  making  a  full  expiation  for  our  sins,  bearing 
the  penalty  of  them  in  his  own  person  in  our  behalf. 

Christ  saves  us  as  a  Sacrifice. 

Intimately  connected  with  the  argument  from  the  priestly  office 
of  Christ,  and  inseparable  from  it,  is  that  which  is  derived  from 
those  numerous  passages  in  which  He  is  set  forth  as  a  sacrifice  for 
sin.  Much  as  the  nature  of  the  Old  Testament  sacrifices  has  of 
late  years  been  discussed,  and  numerous  as  are  the  theories  which 
have  been  advanced  upon  this  subject,  there  are  some  points  with 
regard  to  which  all  who  profess  faith  in  the  Scriptures,  are  agreed. 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  agreed  that  Christ  was  in  some  sense  a  sac- 
rifice for  the  sins  of  men  ;  secondly,  that  the  sense  in  which  He 
was  a  sacrifice  is  the  same  as  that  in  which  the  sin  offerings  of  the 
Old  Testament  were  sacrifices;  and,  thirdly,  that  the  true  Scriptural 
idea  of  sacrifices  for  sin  is  a  historical  question  and  not  a  matter  of 
speculation.  According  to  Miciiaelis,  they  were  mere  fines  ;i  ac- 
cording to  Sykes,  federal  rites ;  according  to  others,  expressions 
of  gratitude,  offerings  to  God  in  acknowledgment  of  his  goodness ; 
according  to  others,  they  were  symbolical  of  the  surrender  and  de- 
votion of  the  life  of  the  offerer  to  God  ;  ^  according  to  others,  they 
were  confessions  of  sin  and  symbolical  exhibitions  of  penitence ;  and 
according  to  others,  their  whole  design  and  effect  was  in  some  way 
to  j)roduce  a  salutary  moral  impression.^     It  is  admitted  that  the 

1  This  also  is  the  doctrine  of  Hofinann  in  his  Schriftbtioeis.  It  is  one  of  the  principal 
objects  of  Delitzsch  in  his  Commenlary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  in  the  long  Ex- 
cursus attached  to  that  admirable  work,  to  contest  the  doctrine  of  Hofmann  on  the  nature  of 
the  work  of  Christ. 

■■i    Tliis  is  the  theory  advocated  by  Dr.  Bahr,  in  his  SymhoUk. 

8  Keil,  in  his  Biblische  Archaolocjle,  and  many  others,  give  substantially  this  moral  view. 
According  to  Keil,  sacritices  were  designed  to  teach  the  translation  of  the  sinner  from  a  state 
of  alienation  from  God  to  a  state  of  grace.  Dr.  Young,  in  his  Liyhl  and  Life  of  Men,  repre- 
sents them  as  Bahr  does,  as  indicating  the  surrender  of  the  soul  to  God,  and  as  intended  to 


§  6.]  PROOF    OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  499 

offerings  of  the  old  economy  were  of  different  kinds,  not  only  as 
bloody  and  unbloody,  but  that  among  those  which  involved  the 
shedding  of  blood  some  were  designed  for  one  purpose  and  some 
for  another.  The  whole  question  relates  to  the  sin  offerings  prop- 
erly so  called,  of  which  the  sacrifices  on  the  great  day  of  atonement 
were  the  special  illustrative  examples.  The  common  doctrine  as 
to  these  sin  offerings  is,  (1.)  That  the  design  of  such  offerings  was 
to  propitiate  God  ;  to  satisfy  his  justice,  and  to  render  it  consistent 
and  proper  that  the  offence  for  which  they  were  offered  should 
be  forgiven ;  (2.)  That  this  propitiation  of  God  was  secured 
by  the  expiation  of  guilt ;  by  such  an  offering  as  covered  sin,  so 
that  it  did  not  appear  before  Him  as  demanding  punishment ; 
(3.)  That  this  expiation  was  effected  by  vicarious  punishment  ; 
the  victim  being  substituted  for  the  offender,  bearing  his  guilt,  and 
suffering  the  penalty  which  he  had  incuri-ed ;  (4.)  That  the 
effect  of  such  sin  offerings  was  the  pardon  of  the  offender,  and  his 
restoration  to  favour  and  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  privileges  which 
he  had  forfeited.  If  this  be  the  true  Scriptural  idea  of  a  sacrifice 
for  sin,  then  do  the  Scriptures  in  declaring  that  Christ  was  a 
sacrifice,  intend  to  teach  that  He  was  the  substitute  for  sinners  ; 
that  He  bore  their  guilt  and  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  their 
stead  ;  and  thereby  reconciled  them  unto  God  ;  i.  e.,  rendered  it 
consistent  with  his  perfections  that  they  should  be  pardoned  and 
restored  to  tlie  divine  fellowship  and  favour. 

Proof  of  the  Common  Doctrine  concerning  Sacrifices  for  Sin. 

That  tliis  is  the  true  doctrine  concerning  sacrifices  for  sin  may 
be  argued,  — 

1.  From  the  general  sentiment  of  the  ancient  world.  These 
offerings  arose  from  a  sense  of  guilt  and  apprehension  of  tlie  wrath 
of  God.  Under  the  pressure  of  the  sense  of  sin,  and  when  the  dis- 
pleasure of  God  was  experienced  or  apprehended,  men  everywliere 
I'esorted  to  every  means  in  their  power  to  make  expiation  for  their 
offences,  and  to  propitiate  the  favour  of  God.  Of  these  means  the 
most  natural,  as  it  appears  from  its  being  universally  adopted,  was 
the  offering  of  propitiatory  sacrifices.  The  more  numerous  and  costly 
these  offerings  the  greater  ho])e  was  cherished  of  their  efficacy. 
Men  did  not  spare  even  the  fruit  of  their  bodies  for  the  sin  of  their 

give  a  divine  sanction  to  the  use  of  animal  food.  Notwithstandinfj  the=e  conflicting  speca- 
lati'ins  of  individual  writers,  it  remains  true  that  the  great  body  of  Biljlical  scholars  of  all 
ages  and  of  all  classes  regard  the  sin  offerings  of  the  Old  Testament  as  real  piacular  sacri- 
fices. This  is  done  by  the  highest  class  of  the  modern  German  theologians,  who  for  them- 
selves reject  the  Churcli  doctrine  of  the  atonement. 


500        PART   III.     Ch.   VII.  —  satisfaction   OF   CHRIST. 

souls.  It  was  not  that  the  Deity,  to  be  propitiated,  needed  these 
oblations,  or  could  Himself  enjoj  them  ;  but  it  was  that  justice 
demanded  satisfaction,  and  the  hope  was  entertained  that  the  death 
of  the  victims  mio;ht  be  taken  in  lieu  of  that  of  the  offender.  Even 
those  who  repudiate  the  doctrine  of  expiation  as  belonging  to  the 
relio;ion  of  the  Bible,  admit  that  it  was  the  doctrine  of  the  ancient 
world.  But  if  it  was  tiie  doctrine  of  the  ancient  world,  two  things 
naturally  follow  ;  first,  that  it  has  a  foundation  in  the  nature  of  man, 
and  in  the  intuitive  knowledge  of  the  relation  which  he  as  a  sin- 
ner bears  to  God ;  and,  secondly,  that  when  we  find  exactly  the 
same  rites  and  ceremonies,  the  same  forms  of  expression  and  the 
same  significant  actions  in  the  Scriptures,  they  cannot  fairly  be 
imderstood  in  a  sense  diametrically  opposite  to  that  in  which  all  the 
rest  of  the  world  understood  them. 

2.  The  second  argument  is  that  it  is  beyond  doubt  that  the 
Hebrews,  to  whom  the  Mosaic  institutions  were  given,  undei'stood 
their  sacrifices  for  sin  to  be  expiatory  offerings  and  not  mere  forms 
of  worship  or  expressions  of  their  devotion  of  themselves  to  God  ; 
or  as  simply  didactic,  designed  to  make  a  moral  impression  on  the 
offender  and  on  the  spectators.  They  were  explained  as  expiations, 
in  which  the  victim  bore  the  guilt  of  the  sinner,  and  died  in  his 
stead  and  for  his  deliverance.  That  such  was  the  doctrine  of  the 
Hebrews  is  jn-oved  by  such  authors  as  Outram,  in  his  work  "  De 
Sacrificiis  ;  "  by  Schoettgen,  "  Horse  Hebrsege  et  Talmudicae  ;  " 
Eisenmenger,  "  Endecktes  Judenthum,"  and  other  writers  on  the 
subject.  Outram  quotes  from  the  Jewish  authorities  forms  of  con- 
fession connected  with  the  imposition  of  hands  on  the  victim.  One 
is  to  the  following  effect :  ^  "I  beseech  thee,  O  Lord,  I  have 
sinned,  I  have  done  perversely,  I  have  rebelled,  I  have  done  (spe- 
cifying the  offence)  ;  but  now  I  repent,  and  let  this  victim  be  my 
expiation."  The  design  of  the  imposition  of  hands  was  to  signify, 
say  these  authorities,  the  removal  of  sin  from  the  offender  to  the 
animal.^ 

3.  It  is  no  less  certain  that  the  whole  Christian  world  has  ever 
regarded  the  sacrifices  for  sin  to  be  expiatory,  designed  to  teach 
the  necessity  of  expiation  and  to  foreshadow  the  method  by  which 
it  was  to  be  accomplished.  Such,  as  has  been  shown,  is  the  faith  of 
the  Latin,  of  the  Lutheran,  and  of  the  Reformed  churches,  all 
the  great  historical  bodies  which  make  up  the  sum  of  professing 

1  "  Obsecro  Domine,  peccavi,  rebellis  fui,  perverse  egi,  hoc  et  illud  feci,  nunc  autein  me 
peccasse  poenitet;  haec  sit  itaque  expiatio  mea."  De  Sacrificiis,  i.  xxii.  9,  edit.  London 
1677,  p.  273. 

2  Lib.  I.  XV.  8,  p.  166  ff. 


§  6.]  PROOF   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  501 

Christians.  That  this  world-wide  beUef  in  the  necessity  of  expia- 
tion even  among  the  heathen ;  this  uniform  conviction  of  the 
Hebrews  that  the  sacrifices,  whicli  they  wei'e  commanded  to  offer 
for  sin,  were  expiatory  ;  this  concurrent  judgment  of  the  Christian 
Churcli  in  all  ages  and  places  are,  after  all,  mere  error  and  delu- 
sion ;  that  such  is  not  the  teaching  either  of  the  natural  conscience, 
or  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  or  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  is  abso- 
lutely incredible.  The  attempt  to  overthrow  a  conviction  thus 
general  and  permanent,  is  chimerical. 

4.  But  these  arguments  from  general  conviction  and  assent, 
although  perfectly  valid  in  such  cases  as  the  present,  are  not  those 
on  which  the  faith  of  Christians  rests.  They  find  the  doctrine  of 
expiatory  sacrifices  clearly  taught  in  Scripture  ;  they  see  that  the 
sin  offerings  under  the  Old  Testament  were  expiations. 

The  Old  Testament  Sacrifices  Expiatory. 

This  is  plain  from  the  clear  meaning  of  the  language  used  in  ref- 
erence to  them.  They  are  called  sin  offerings ;  trespass  offerings,  i.  e., 
offerings  made  by  siimers  on  account  of  sin.  They  are  said  to  bear 
the  sins  of  the  offender  ;  to  make  expiation  for  sin,  i.  e.,  to  cover  it 
from  the  sight  of  God's  justice  ;  they  are  declared  to  be  intended  to 
secure  forgiveness,  not  through  repentance  or  reformation,  —  these 
are  presupposed  before  the  offering  is  brought,  —  but  by  shedding 
of  blood,  by  giving  soul  for  soul,  life  for  life.  The  reason  assigned  in 
Leviticus  xvii.  11,  why  blood  should  not  be  used  for  food,  was.  that 
it  was  set  apart  to  make  expiation  for  sin.  The  Hebrew  is  "HQsb 
:i5''nt27D5"b">,  which  the  Septuagint  renders  eftXao-Kco-^ai  vrepl  twv  {j/vx<^v 
ii/AWf  ;  and  the  Vulgate,  "  Ut  super  altare  in  eo  expietis  pro  animabus 
vestris."  The  elder  Michaelis  expresses  clearly  the  meaning  of  the 
passage  and  the  design  of  the  prohibition,  when  he  says  (On  Leviti- 
cus xvii.  10),  "  Ne  sanguis  res  sanctissima,  ad  expiationem  immun- 
dorum  a  Deo  ordinata,  communi  usu  profanaretur."  The  last  clause 
of  the  verse,  which  in  our  version  is  rendered,  "  For  it  is  the  blood 
that  maketh  an  atonement  for  the  soul,"  is  more  literally  and  cor- 
rectly i-endered,  "  For  blood  by  (its)  soul  or  life  makes  atonement ;  " 
or,  as  Bahr  and  Fairbairn  translate  it,  "  The  blood  atones  through 
the  soul."  The  latter  writer  con-ectly  remarks,^  "  This  is  the  only 
sense  of  the  passage  that  can  be  grammatically  justified  ;  for  the 
preposition  3  after  the  verb  to  atone  ("id::)  invariably  denotes  that  by 
which  the  atonement  is  made  ;  while  as  invariably  the  person  or  ob- 
ject for  which  is  denoted  by  b  or  b37."  —  Aben  Ezra,  quoted  by 

1    Typology,  edit.  Philadelphia,  1857,  vol.  ii.  p.  288,  note. 


502       PART  m.     Ch.    Vn.  -  SATISFACTION   OF    CHRIST. 

Biihr,  had  briefly  indicated  tlie  right  interpretation.  "  Sanguis 
anirna,  quae  sibi  inest,  expiat."  It  seems  impossible  that  this  and 
similar  express  declarations  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  sacrifices  for 
sins  were  expiations,  can  be  reconciled  with  the  modern  speculation 
that  they  were  symbolical  expressions  of  devotion  to  God,  or  means 
of  effecting  a  i-eformation  of  the  offender,  who  because  of  that  ref- 
ormation was  restored  to  God's  favour. 

The  argument,  therefore,  is  that  the  Scriptures  expressly  declare 
that  these  sacrifices  were  made  for  the  expiation  of  sin.  This  idea 
is  expressed  by  the  word  153,  to  cover,  to  hide  from  view,  to  blot 
out,  to  expiate.  Hence  the  substantive  -153  means  that  which 
delivers  from  punishment  or  evil.  It  is  the  common  word  for  an 
atonement,  but  it  also  is  used  for  a  ransom,  because  it  is  rendered 
to  secure  deliverance.  Thus  the  half  shekel  required  to  be  paid  by 
every  male  Israelite  as  a  ransom  for  his  soul  was  called  a  -15b  (in 
Greek,  Xvrpov,  or  XvTpa'y.  See, Exodus  xxx.  12—16  :  "  When  thou 
takest  the  sum  of  the  children  of  Israel,  ....  then  shall  they 
give  every  man  a  ransom  /~1D3)  for  his  soul  unto  the  Lord,  .... 
half  a  shekel  ....  the  I'ich  shall  not  give  more,  and  the  poor 
shall  not  give  less,  than  half  a  shekel,  when  they  give  an  offering 
to  the  Lord,  to  make  an  atonement  ("iSDb,  Gr.  e^'iAdo-ao-6'at)  for 
your  souls."  Here  it  is  impossible  to  mistake  the  meaning. 
The  half  shekel  was  a  ransom,  something  paid  to  secure  deliver- 
ance from  evil.  It  was  not  a  symbol  of  devotion,  or  an  exj)ression 
of  penitence,  but  a  payment  of  a  stipulated  ransom.  That  the  half 
shekel  bore  no  proportion  to  the  value  of  a  man's  life,  or  the  blood 
of  a  victim  to  the  value  of  the  soul,  does  not  alter  the  case.  The 
idea  is  the  same.  The  truth  taught  is  that  satisfaction  must  be 
made  if  sinners  are  to  be  saved.  The  constantly  recurring  expres- 
sions, "to  make  atonement  for  sin  ;  "  "  to  make  atonement  on  the 
horns  of  the  altar ; "  "  to  make  atonement  for  the  sins  of  the  people," 
etc.,  which  are  correct  renderings  of  the  Hebrew  phiiises  which 
mean  "  to  make  expiation,"  as  understood  from  the  beginning, 
cannot  be  reconciled  with  any  other  theory  of  sacrifices  than  that  of 
vicarious  satisfaction.  In  Numbers  xxxv.  31,  it  is  said,  "  Ye  shall 
take  no  satisfaction  ("IDS,  Xvrpa,  pretium),  for  the  life  of  a  murderer, 
which  is  guilty  of  death ;  but  he  shall  be  surely  put  to  death  .... 
the  land  cannot  be  cleansed  ("i2D^ ;  Septuagint,  c'i'tA.ao-^'/ytrerai ;  Vul- 
gate, wee  aliter  expiari  potest)  of  the  blood  that  is  shed  therein,  but 
by  the  blood  of  him  that  shed  it."  Here  again  there  can  be  no 
mistake.  To  cover  sin,  -iS2,  is  to  expiate  it  by  a  penal  satisfaction  ; 
that  expiation  is  expressed,  as  we  have  seen,  by  -15*3^  which  literally 


§  6.]  PROOF   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  503 

signifies  that  which  covers,  and,  in  such  connections,  that  whicli 
covers  sin  so  tliat  it  no  longer  demands  punishment.  When,  there- 
fore, a  sacrifice  is  said  to  cover  sin  it  must  mean  that  it  expiates  it, 
hides  it  from  the  eyes  of  justice  b}'  a  satisfaction.  A  npb  is  a  sat- 
isfaction. This  satisfaction  must  be  made  either  by  the  offender  or 
by  some  one  in  his  stead.  In  the  case  of  murder,  if  the  perpetra- 
tor could  not  be  discovered,  a  victim  was  to  be  slain  in  his  stead, 
and  thus  satisfaction  was  to  be  made.  The  law  in  reference  to  this 
case  makes  the  nature  and  design  of  sin  offerings  perfectly  plain. 
The  elders  of  the  nearest  city  were  commanded  to  take  a  heifer 
which  had  not  borne  the  yoke,  and  wash  their  hands  over  it  in  at- 
testati(m  of  their  innocence  of  the  blood  of  the  murdered  man  ;  the 
priests  being  present.  The  heifer  was  to  be  slain,  and  thus  expia- 
tion made  for  the  offence.  The  words  are,  uin  cn^  "1533V 
Greek,  koI  k^iXaaOrjo- erai  aurot?  to  ajjxa  ;  Latin,  "  Et  auferetur  ab  eis 
reatus  sanguinis."  The  lenioval  of  guilt  by  a  vicarious  death  is, 
therefore,  the  Scriptural  idea  of  a  sin  offering.  It  would,  however, 
require  a  volume  to  present  a  tithe  of  the  evidence  furnished  by 
the  phraseology  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  the  sin  offerings  were 
regarded  as  expiations  for  sin;  not  designed  proximately  for  the 
reformation  of  the  offf  nder,  but  to  secure  the  remission  of  the  pen- 
alty due  to  his  transgression.  The  constantly  recurring  formula  is, 
Let  him  offer  the  sacrifice  for  "sin,  and  it  sliall  be  foi'o-iven  him." 

The  ceremonies  attending  the  offering  of  sacrifices  f<M'  sin  show 
that  they  were  understood  to  be  expiatory.  (1.)  The  victims  were 
selected  from  the  class  of  clean  animals  appropriated  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  life  of  man.  They  were  to  be  free  from  all  blemish. 
This  physical  perfection  was  typical  of  the  freedom  from  all  sin  of 
Him  who  was  to  'be  the  substitute  for  sinners.  (2.)  The  offender 
was  required  himself  to  bring  the  victim  to  the  altar.  The  service 
involved  an  acknowledgment  on  the  part  of  the  offerer  of  his  just 
exposure  to  punishment  for  his  sin.  (3.)  The  hands  of  the  offender 
were  to  be  laid  on  the  head  of  the  victim,  to  express  the  ideas  of 
substitution  and  of  transfer  of  guilt.  The  sin  of  the  offerer  was  laid 
upon  the  head  of  the  victim.  (4.)  The  blood  of  the  victim,  slain 
by  the  priest,  was  received  by  him  as  the  minister  of  God,  sprinkled 
on  the  altar,  or,  on  the  great  day  of  atonement,  carried  into  the 
Most  Holy  place  where  the  symbol  of  God's  presence  was,  and 
sprinkled  on  the  top  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant ;  showing  that  the 
service  terminated  on  God  ;  that  it  was  designed  to  apj)ease  his 
wrath  (according  to  Scriptural  phraseology),  to  satisfy  his  justice, 
and  to  open  the  way  for  the  free  forgiveness  of  sin.  The  significance 


504       PART  m.     Ch.  Vn.  — satisfaction   of   CHRIST. 

assigned  to  these  ceremonial  acts  is  that  which  their  nature  de- 
mands; which  the  Scriptures  themselves  assign  to  them  ;  and  which 
they  must  have  either  to  account  for  the  effects  which  the  sin 
offering  produced,  or  to  make  out  the  correspondence  between  the 
type  and  the  antitype  wliich  the  New  Testament  declares  was 
intended.  These  symbolical  acts  admit  of  no  other  explanation 
without  doing  violence  to  the  text,  and  forcing  on  antiquity  the 
ideas  of  modern  times,  which  is  to  substitute  our  speculations  for 
the  authoritative  teachings  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  offender  upon  the  head  of  the 
victim  was  essential  to  this  service.  The  general  import  of  the  im- 
position of  hands  was  that  of  communication.  Hence  this  ceremony 
was  practiced  on  various  occasions  :  (1.)  In  appointing  to  office, 
to  signify  the  transfer  of  authority.  (2.)  In  imparting  any  spiritual 
gift  or  blessing.  (3.)  In  substituting  one  for  another,  and  trans- 
ferring the  responsibility  of  one  to  another.  This  was  the  import 
of  the  imposition  of  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  victim.  It  was 
substituted  in  the  place  of  the  offerer,  and  the  guilt  of  the  one  was 
symbolically  transferred  from  the  one  to  the  other.  Hence  the 
victhn  was  said  to  bear  the  sins  of  the  people  ;  or  their  sins  were 
said  to  be  laid  upon  it.  In  the  solemn  services  of  the  great  day 
of  atonement,  the  import  of  this  rite  is  rendered  especially  clear. 
It  was  commanded  that  two  goats  should  be  selected,  one  for  a  sin- 
offering  and  the  other  for  a  scape-goat.  The  two  constituted  one 
sacrifice,  as  it  was  impossible  that  one  could  signify  all  that  was  in- 
tended to  be  taught.  Of  the  scape-goat  it  is  said,  "  Aaron  shall 
lay  both  his  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  live  goat,  and  confess  over 
him  all  the  iniquities  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  all  their  trans- 
gressions in  all  their  sins,  putting  them  upon  the*  head  of  the  goat, 
....  and  the  goat  shall  bear  upon  him  all  their  iniquities  unto  a 
land  not  inhabited."  This  renders  it  plain  that  the  design  of  the 
imposition  of  hands  was  to  signify  the  transfer  of  the  guilt  of  the 
offender  to  the  victim.  The  nature  of  these  offerings  is  still  further 
evident  from  the  fact  that  the  victim  was  said  "  to  bear  the  sin  "  of 
the  offender.  For  example,  in  Isaiah  liii.  that  the  servant  of  the 
Lord  made  "  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin,"  is  explained  \)y  saying  that 
"  He  bare  the  sin  of  many  ;  "  that  "  the  chastisement  of  our  peace 
was  upon  him  ;  "  and  that  "  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity 
of  us  all."  These  and  similar  expressions  do  not  admit  of  being  un- 
derstood of  the  removal  of  sin  by  reformation  or  spiritual  renovation. 
They  have  a  fixed  and  definite  meaning  throughout  the  Scriptures. 
To  bear  sin  is  to  bear  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  sin.      It  may  be 


§  6.]  PROOF    OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  505 

admitted  that  the  Hebrew  word  S£i73  may  mean  to  remove^  or  hear 
away^  as  in  1  Samuel  xvii.  34  and  Judges  xvi.  31,  although  even  in 
these  cases  the  ordinary  sense  is  admissible.  The  question,  how- 
ever, is  not  what  a  word  may  mean,  but  what  it  does  mean  in  a 
given  formula  and  connection.  The  word  signifies  to  raise,  or  lift 
up ;  to  lift  up  the  eyes,  the  hand,  the  voice,  the  head,  the  heart. 
Then  it  means  to  lift  up  in  the  sense  of  bearing,  as  a  tree  bears  its 
fruit  ;  or  in  the  sense  of  enduring,  as  sorrow,  suffering ;  or,  of  bear- 
ing as  a  burden,  and  especially  the  burden  of  guilt  or  punishment. 
And  finally  it  may  have  the  accessary  meaning  of  bearing  away,  or 
of  reinoving.  If  this  should  be  insisted  upon  in  those  cases  where 
sin  is  spoken  of,  then  it  remains  to  be  asked  what  is  the  Scriptural 
sense  of  removing  sin,  or  bearing  sin  away.  That  formula  means 
two  things  ;  first,  to  remove  the  guilt  of  sin  by  expiation,  and  sec- 
ondly, to  remove  its  defilement  and  power  by  spiritual  renovation. 
One  or  the  other  of  these  ideas  is  expressed  by  all  the  correspond- 
ing terms  used  in  the  Bible  ;  Kadalpeiv,  to  purify,  or  KaOapia-fiov  ttoi^Zv  ; 
dyia^etv,  to  cleanse  ;  and  others,  as  to  wash,  to  blot  out,  etc.  All 
these  terms  are  used  to  express  either  sacrificial  purification  bv 
blood,  or  spiritual  purification  by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Which,  in  any  particular  case,  is  intended,  is  determined  by  the 
context.  Therefore,  even  if  the  words  1"i37  Stt^n  be  rendered  to  re- 
move iniquity  or  sin,  the  question  would  still  be,  Does  it  mean  the 
removal  of  guilt  by  expiation  ;  or  the  removal  of  pollution  by  moral 
renovation  ?  In  point  of  fact  the  words  in  question  always  refer 
to  bearing  the  punishment  and  thus  removing  the  guilt  of  sin,  and 
never  to  the  removal  of  moral  pollution.  This  is  plain,  (1.)  Be- 
cause Sii?3  is  interchanged  with  ^?3.  which  never  means  to  remove, 
but  only  to  sustain,  or  bear  as  a  burden.  (2.)  Because  usage  de- 
termines the  meaning  of  the  phrase  and  is  uniform.  In  Numbers 
xiv.  34,  it  is  said,  "  Ye  shall  bear  your  iniquities  forty  years." 
Leviticus  v.  1,  "  If  a  soul  ....  hear  the  voice  of  swearing,  and  is 
a  witness  ;  ....  if  he  do  not  utter  it,  he  shall  bear  his  iniquity." 
Leviticus  v.  17,  "  He  is  guilty,  and  shall  bear  his  iniquity."  Leviti- 
cus vii.  18,  "  The  soul  that  eateth  of  it  shall  bear  his  iniquity." 
Leviticus  xvii.  16,  "•  If  he  wash  not  ....  then  he  shall  bear  his 
iniquity."  Leviticus  xix.  8  ;  xx.  17  ;  xxii.  9,  "  They  shall  keep  my 
ordinance,  lest  they  bear  sin  for  it."  Numbers  ix.  13,  If  a  man 
forbear  to  keep  the  passover,  he  shall  be  cut  off  from  the  people, 
"  he  shall  bear  his  sin."  See  also  Numbers  xviii.  22,  32.  Ezekiel 
iv.  4,  5,  it  is  said  to  the  prophet  enduring  penance,  "So  shalt  thou 
bear  the  iniquity  of  the  house  of  Israel."     "  Thou  shalt  bear  the 


500       PART  in.     Cn.   VII.  —  SATISFACTION   OF   CHRIST. 

iniquity  of  the  house  of  Judah  forty  days."  "  Lie  tliou  upon  thy  left 
side  ....  according  to  tlie  number  of  tlie  da3's  tliat  thou  slialt  lie 
upon  it,  thou  shalt  bear  their  iniquity."  Ezekiel  xviii.  20,  "  The 
son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father;  neither  shall  the  father 
bear  the  iniquity  of  the  son."  In  all  these,  and  in  other  like  cases, 
it  is  simply  impossible  that  "  bearing  sin  "  should  mean  the  removal 
of  sin  by  moral  I'enovation.  The  expression  occurs  some  forty 
times  in  the  Bible,  and  always  in  the  sense  of  bearing  the  guilt  or 
punishment  of  sin.  It  is  hardly  an  exception  to  this  remark  that 
tliere  are  a  few  cases  in  which  nsisn  Hti7D  means  to  pardon  ;  as  in 
Exodus  X.  17  ;  xxxii.  32  ;  xxxiv.  7  ;  Psalms  xxxii.  5  (and  Ixxxv.  8) ; 
for  pardon  is  not  the  removal  of  sin  morally,  but  the  lifting  up,  or 
removal  of  its  guilt.  This  being  the  fact,  it  determines  the  nature 
of  the  sin  offerings  under  the  law.  The  victim  bore  the  sin  of  the 
offerer,  and  died  in  his  stead.  An  expiation  was  thereby  effected 
by  the  suffering  of  a  vicarious  punishment.  This  also  determines 
the  nature  of  the  work  of  Christ.  If  He  was  an  offering  for  sin, 
if  He  saves  us  from  the  ])enalty  of  the  law  of  God,  in  the  same 
way  in  which  the  sin  offering  saved  the  Israelite  from  the  penalty 
of  the  law  of  Moses,  then  He  bore  the  guilt  of  our  sins  and  en- 
dured the  penalty  in  our  stead.  We  may  not  approve  of  this  method 
of  salvation.  The  idea  of  the  innocent  bearing  the  sins  of  the 
guilty,  and  being  punished  in  his  stead,  may  not  be  agreeable  to 
our  feelings  or  to  our  modes  of  thinking,  but  it  can  hardly  be 
denied  that  such  is  the  representation  and  doctrine  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Our  only  alternative  is  to  accept  that  doctrine,  or  reject  the 
authority  of  Scripture  directly  or  indirectly.  That  is,  either  to 
deny  their  divine  origin,  or  to  explain  away  their  explicit  state- 
ments. In  either  case  their  plain  meaning  remains  untouched. 
The  German  rationalists  in  general  take  the  former  of  these  two 
courses.  They  admit  that  the  Bible  teaches  the  doctrine  of  vicari- 
ous punishment,  but  they  deny  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  because 
they  deny  the  Bible  to  be  the  Word  of  God. 

The  passages  in  which  Christ  is  represented  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin, 
are  too  numerous  to  be  here  specially  considered.  The  New 
Testament,  and  particularly  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  before 
remarked,  declares  and  teaches,  that  the  priesthood  of  the  old 
economy  was  a  type  of  the  priesthood  of  Christ;  that  the  sacrifices 
of  that  dispensation  were  types  of  his  sacrifice  ;  that  as  the  blood  of 
bulls  and  of  goats  purified  the  flesh,  so  the  blood  of  Christ  cleanses 
the  soul  from  guilt ;  and  that  as  they  were  expiations  effected 
by  vicarious  punishment,  in  their  sphere,  so  was  the   sacrifice  of 


§6.]  PROOF   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  507 

Christ  in  the  infinitely  higher  sphere  to  which  his  work  belongs. 
Such  being  the  relation  between  the  Old  Economy  and  the  New,  the 
wliole  sacrificial  service  of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  becomes  to  the 
Christian  an  extended  and  irresistible  proof  and  exhibition  of  the 
work  of  Christ  as  an  expiation  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  and  a  satis- 
faction to  the  justice  of  God. 

The  Fifty-third  Chapter  of  Isaiah. 

It  is  not  however  only  in  the  typical  services  of  the  old  economy 
that  this  great  doctrine  was  set  forth  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 
In  the  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah  this  doctrine  is  presented  with  a 
clearness  and  copiousness  which  have  extorted  assent  from  the 
most  unwilling  minds.  The  prophet  in  that  chapter  not  only  fore- 
tells that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a  man  of  sorrows ;  not  only  that 
He  was  to  suffer  the  greatest  indignities  and  be  put  to  a  violent 
death  ;  not  only  that  these  sufferings  were  endured  for  the  benefit 
of  others  ;  but  that  they  were  truly  vicarious,  ^.  g.,  that  He  suffered, 
in  our  stead,  the  penalty  Avhich  we  had  incurred,  in  order  to  our 
deliverance.  This  is  done  not  only  in  those  forms  of  expression 
which  most  naturally  admit  of  this  interpretation,  but  in  others 
which  can,  consistently  with  usage  and  the  analogy  of  Scripture, 
be  understood  in  no  other  way.  To  the  former  class  belong  such 
expressions  as  the  following,  "  He  hath  borne  our  griefs,  and 
carried  our  sorrows."  Our  griefs  and  our  sorrows  are  the  griefs 
and  sorrows  which  we  deserved.  Tliese  Christ  hore  in  the  sense 
of  enduring,  for  He  carried  them  as  a  burden.  "  He  was  wounded 
for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities."  "With 
his  stripes  we  are  healed."  "  For  the  transgression  of  my  people 
was  he  stricken."  These  phrases  might  be  used  of  the  sufferings 
of  a  patriot  for  his  country,  of  a  philanthropist  for  his  fellow-men, 
or  of  a  friend  for  those  dear  to  him.  That  they  however  are  most 
naturally  understood  of  vicarious  suffering,  can  hardly  be  denied. 
And  that  they  were  intended  by  the  Spirit  of  God  to  be  so  under- 
stood, is  plain  by  their  being  intermingled  with  expressions  which 
admit  of  no  other  interpretation.  To  this  class  belong  the  fol- 
lowing clauses :  First,  "  the  chastisement  (or  punishment)  of 
our  peace  was  upon  him  "  That  is,  the  punishment  by  which  our 
peace  was  secured.  Of  this  clause  Delitzsch,  one  of  the  very  first 
of  living  Hebraists,  says,^  "Der  Begrifi^  der  poena  vicaria  kann 
hebrjiisch  gar  nicht  scharfer  ausgedriickt  werden  als  in  jenen 
Worten."     "  The  idea  of  vicarious  punishment  cannot  be  more 

1  Commentar  zum  Brief e  an  die  Hebrder,  Leipzig,  1857,  p.  ''IQ. 


508       PART  III.     Ch.   VII.  —  satisfaction   OF   CHRIST. 

precisely  expressed  in  Hebrew  tlian  by  those  words."  Secondly, 
it  is  said,  "  The  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  (caused  to  fall,  or,  cast  on 
him)  the  iniquity  of  us  all."  We  have  already  seen  that  this  is 
the  language  used  in  the  Old  Testament  to  express  the  transfer  of 
the  guilt  of  the  offender  to  the  victim  slain  in  his  stead.  They  have 
a  definite  Scriptural  meaning,  which  cannot  be  denied  in  this  case 
without  doing  open  violence  to  admitted  rules  of  interpretation. 
"  If,"  says  Dr.  J.  Addison  Alexander,^  "  vicarious  suffering  can 
be  described  in  words,  it  is  so  described  in  these  two  verses;"  i.  e., 
the  verses  in  which  this  clause  occurs.  Thirdly,  it  is  said  of  the 
Messiah  that  He  made,  or  was  to  make  "  his  soul  an  offering  for 
sin."  The  Hebrew  word  is  UWi^,  guilt,  debt  ;  and  then  an  offering 
which  bears  guilt  and  expiates  it.  It  is  the  common  word  in  the 
Levitical  law  for  "  trespass  offering."  Michaelis  in  his  marginal 
annotations,  remarks  on  this  word  (Isaiah  liii.  10),  "  Delictum 
significat,  ut  notet  etiam  sacrificium,  cui  delictum  imputatum  est. 
Vide  passim,  inprimis  Lev.  iv.  3  ;  v.  6,  7,  16 ;  vii.  1,  etc.,  etc. 
....  Recte  etiam  Raschi  ad  h.  1.  '  Ascham,'  inquit,  '  significat 
satisfactionem,  sen  jytron,  quod  quis  alteri  exsolvit,  in  quem  deli- 
quit,  Gallice,  Amande,  /.  e.  mulcta.'  "  The  literal  meaning  of  the 
words,  therefore,  is,  His  soul  was  made  a  satisfaction  for  sin. 
Fourthly,  it  is  said,  "  My  righteous  servant  shall  justify  many  ;  for 
he  shall  bear  their  iniquities."  "  He  was  numbered  with  the 
transgressors,  and  he  bare  the  sin  of  many."  It  has  already  been 
shown  that  to  "  bear  sin  "  never  means  to  sanctify,  to  effect  a  moral 
change  by  removing  the  power  and  pollution  of  sin,  but  uniformly, 
in  the  sacrificial  language  of  the  Bible,  to  bear  the  guilt  or  penalty 
for  sin. 

Passages  of  the  New  Testament  in  which  the  Work  of  Christ  is  set 
forth  as  Sacrifice. 

In  Romans  iii.  25,  it  is  said.  He  was  set  forth  as  "  a  propitiation 
through  faith  in  his  blood."  The  word  here  used  is  IXaaTrjpLov,  the 
neuter  form  of  the  adjective  iXao-rj^ptos  ("  propitiatory,  expiatory"), 
used  substantively.  It  therefore  means,  as  Robinson  and  other 
lexicographers  define  it,  and  as  the  great  body  of  interpreters 
explain  it,  "  an  expiatory  sacrifice."  The  meaning  of  the  word  is 
determined  by  the  context  and  confirmed  by  parallel  passages. 
The  design  of  setting  forth  Christ  as  a  'iXa(TTi]piov  was  precisely 
that  which  an  expiatory  sacrifice  was  intended  to  acco!n])lish, 
namely,  to  satisfy  justice,  that  God  might  be  just  in  the  forgiveness 

1   The  Later  Prophecies  of  Isaiah,  New  York,  1847,  p.  26-t. 


§6.J  PROOF   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  509 

of  sin.     And  tlie  SiKaioavvr]   of  God  manifested  in  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ,  was  not  his  benevolence,  but  that  form  of  justice  which 
demands  the  punishment  of  sin.     "  It  is  a  fundamental   idea  of 
Scripture,"  says  Delitzsch,   "  that  sin  is  expiated  {^<^T)  by  punish- 
ment, as  nmrder  by  the  death  of  the  murderer."  ^    Again,  "  Where 
there  is  shedding  of  blood  and  of  life,  there  is  violent  death,  and 
where  a  violent  death  is  (judicially)  inflicted,  there  there  is  mani- 
festation of  vindicatory  justice,  der  strafenden  Gerechtigkeit."  ^    In 
like  manner,  in  Romans  viii.  8,  the  Apostle  says,  God  sent  his  Son 
as  a  sin  offering  Qirepl  ajuapna?,  which  in  Hellenistic  Greek  means  an 
offering  for  sin,  Hebrews  x.  6),  and  thereby  condemned  sin  in  the 
flesh,  that  is,  in  the  flesh  or  person  of  Christ.     And  thus  it  is  that 
we  are  justified,  or  the  righteousness  of  the  law  is  fulfilled  in  us. 
The  same  Apostle,  in  Galatians  i.  4,  says  that  Christ  "  gave  himself 
for  our  sins."     That  is,  He  gave  Himself  unto  death  as  a  sacrifice 
for  our  sins  that  He  might  effect  our  redemption.    Such  is  the  plain 
meaning  of  this  passage,  if  understood  according  to  the  established 
usage  of  the  Scripture.     "  The  idea  of  satisfaction,"  says  Meyer, 
on  this  passage,  "lies  not  in  the  force  of  the  preposition  [vTrep]  but 
in  the  nature  of  the  transaction,  in  dem  ganzen  Sachverhiiltniss." 
In  Ephesians  v.  2,  it  is  said  Christ  gave  "  himself  for  us,  an  offer- 
ing and    a    sacrifice  to  God  for  a   sweet-smelling  savour."     His 
offering  was  a  sacrifice  (^vo-tW).     His  blood  was  shed  as  an  expia- 
tion.     The  question,  says  Meyer,   whether  Christ  is  here  repre- 
sented as  a  sin  offering,   "  is  decided  not  so   much  by  iwep  ^/xwv  as 
by  the  constant  New  Testament,  and  specially  the  Pauline,  concep- 
tion of  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  tAacrrjjptov."     Hebrews  ix.   14,  is 
especially  important  and  decisive.     The  Apostle,  in  the  context, 
contrasts  the  sacrifices  of  the  law  with  that  of  Christ.     If  the  for- 
mer, consisting  of  the  blood  of  irrational  animals,  nothing  but  the 
principle  of  animal  life,  could  avail  to  effect  external  or  ceremonial 
purification,  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  was 
possessed  of  an  eternal  spirit,  or  divine   nature,  and  offered  Him- 
self without   spot  unto  God,  avail  to  the  purification  of  the  con- 
science, ^.  e.,  effect  the  real  expiation  of    sin.     Tlie  purification 
spoken  of  in  both  members  of  this  comparison,  is  purification  from 
guilt,  and  not  spiritual  renovation.     The  Old  Testament  sacrifices 
were  expiatory  and  not  reformatory,  and  so  was  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ.     The  certain  result  and  ultimate  design  in  both  cases  was 
reconciliation  to  the  favour  and  fellowship  of  God ;  but  the  neces- 
sary preliminary  condition  of  such  reconciliation  was  the  expiation 

1  Commentar  zum  Brief e  an  die  Hebrder,  p.  720.  2  Jdid.  p.  719. 


510       PART   III.     Ch.   VII.  — satisfaction    OF   CHRIST. 

of  guilt.  Again,  toward  the  end  of  the  same  chapter,  the  Apostle 
says  that  Christ  was  not  called  upon  to  "offer  himself  often,  .... 
for  then  must  he  often  have  suffered  since  the  foundation  of  the 
•world  :  but  now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he  appeared  to 
put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself."  The  offering  which  He 
made  was  Himself.  Its  design  and  effect  were  to  put  away  sin  ; 
i.  g.,  to  put  away  sin  as  was  done  by  expiatory  sacrifices.  This  is 
confirmed  by  what  follows.  Christ  came  the  first  time  "  to  bear 
the  sins  of  many  ;  "  He  is  to  come  the  second  time  "without  sin," 
without  that  burden  which,  on  his  first  advent.  He  had  voluntarily 
assumed.  He  was  then  bunlened  with  our  sins  in  the  sense 
in  which  the  ancient  sacrifices  bore  the  sins  of  the  people.  He 
bore  their  guilt  ;  that  is,  he  assumed  the  responsibility  of  making 
satisfaction  for  them  to  the  justice  of  God.  When  He  comes  the 
second  time,  it  will  not  be  as  a  sin  offering,  but  to  consummate  the 
salvation  of  his  people.  The  parallel  passage  to  this  is  found  in  2 
Corinthians  v.  21  :  "  He  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us  who  knew 
no  sin."  The  design  of  the  Apostle  is  to  explain  how  it  is  that  God 
is  reconciled  unto  the  world,  not  imputing  unto  men  their  trespasses. 
He  is  free  thus  to  pardon  and  treat  as  righteous  those  who  in  them- 
selves are  unrighteous,  because  for  us  and  in  our  stead  He  who 
was  without  sin  was  treated  as  a  sinner.  The  sense  in  which  Christ 
was  treated  as  a  sinner  is,  says  Meyer,  in  loco  "  in  dem  er  nlimlich 
die  Todesstrafe  erlitt,  in  that  he  suffered  the  punishment  of  death.'''' 
Here  again  the  idea  of  the  poena  vicaria  is  clearly  expressed. 

In  Hebrews  x.  10,  we  are  said  to  be  "  sanctified  through  the 
offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all."  The  word 
ayia^ctr,  here  rendered  sanctify,  means  to  cleanse.  Sin  is,  in  Scrip- 
ture, always  regarded  as  a  defilement  in  both  its  aspects  of  guilt 
and  moral  turpitude.  As  guilt,  it  is  cleansed  by  blood,  by  sacrifi- 
cial expiation  ;  as  defilement,  by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Which  kind  of  purification  is  intended  is  determined  in  each  case 
bv  the  context.  If  the  purification  is  effected  by  sacrifice,  by  the 
blood  or  death  of  Christ,  then  the  removal  of  guilt  is  intended. 
Hence,  all  the  passages  in  Avhich  we  are  said  to  be  saved,  or  recon- 
ciled unto  God,  or  purified,  or  sanctified  by  the  blood  or  death  of 
Christ,  must  be  regarded  as  so  many  assertions  that  He  was  an 
expiatory  sacrifice  for  sin.  In  this  passage  the  meaning  of  the 
Apostle  cannot  be  mistaken.  He  is  again  contrasting  the  sacrifices 
of  the  Old  Testament  with  that  of  Christ.  They  were  ineffectual, 
the  latter  was  of  sovereign  efficacy.  "  Sacrifice  and  oflering 
thou  wouldest  not,  but  a  body  hast  thou  prepared  me.     Lo,  1  come 


§6.]  PROOF   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  511 

to  do  thy  will."  By  which  Avill,  i.  e.,  by  the  execution  of  this 
purpose  of  sending  his  incarnate  Son,  we  are  cleansed  by  the  one 
offering  up  of  his  body.  The  ancient  sacrifices,  he  says  (verse  11), 
had  to  be  constantly  repeated.  "But  this  man,  after  he  had 
offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins,  for  ever  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of 
God."  "  For  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  forever  (jeTeXuwKer, 
brought  to  the  end  contemplated  by  a  sacrifice)  them  that  are 
sanctified,"  i.  e.,  cleansed  from  guilt.  That  sacrificial  cleansing  is 
here  intended  is  plain,  for  the  effect  of  it  is  pardon.  "  Their  sins 
and  iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more.  Now  where  remission  of 
these  is,  there  is  no  more  offering  for  sin."  And  in  verse  26,  we 
are  taught  that  for  those  who  reject  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  there 
remains  "  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins  ;  but  a  certain  fearful  looking 
for  of  judgment."  It  was  pardon,  therefore,  founded  upon  the 
expiation  of  sin,  that  was  secured  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  And 
this  is  declared  to  be  the  only  possible  means  by  which  our  guilt  can 
be  removed,  or  the  justice  of  God  satisfied.  It  is  to  be  always 
borne  in  mind,  however,  that  the  end  of  expiation  is  I'econcillation 
with  God,  and  that  reconciliation  with  God  involves  or  secures 
conformity  to  his  image  and  intimate  fellowship  with  Him.  The 
ultimate  design  of  the  work  of  Christ  is,  therefore,  declared  to  be 
to  "  bring  us  to  God  ;  "  to  "  pui'ify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  j>eople 
zealous  of  good  works."  The  removal  of  guilt  by  expiation  is, 
however,  constantly  set  forth  as  the  absolutely  essential  preliminary 
to  this  inward  subjective  reconciliation  with  God.  This  is  a  neces- 
sity, as  the  Scriptures  teach,  arising  out  of  the  nature  of  God  as  a 
holy  and  just  Being. 

What  Paul  teaches  so  abundantly  of  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ 
is  taught  by  the  Apostle  John  (First  Epistle,  ii.  2).  Jesus  Christ 
"is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."  Th«  word  here  used  is  tAao-/Aos, 
propitiation,  expiation;  from  "  iAda-/co/xai,  to  reconcile  one's  self  to 
any  one  by  expiation,  to  appease,  to  propitiate."  And  in  chapter  iv. 
10,  it  is  said,  "  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he 
loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins." 
The  inconsistency  between  love,  and  expiation  or  satisfaction  for 
sin,  which  modern  writers  so  much  insist  upon,  was  not  perceived 
by  men  who  spoke  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  In 
chapter  i.  7,  this  same  A))ostle  says,  "  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ 
his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin."  To  cleanse,  KaOapt^eu',  KaOaipetv, 
Ka0npia[x6i'  TTotelr,  dyta(Cetr,  Xoveiv  (Revelation  i.  5)  are  established  sac- 
rificial terms  to  express  the  removal  of  the  guilt  of  sin  by  expia- 
tion. 


512       PART  III.     Ch.   VU.  —  satisfaction   OF   CHRIST. 

The  above  are  only  a  part  of  the  passages  in  which  our  blessed 
Lord  is,  in  the  New  Testament,  set  forth  as  a  sin  offering,  in  the 
Scriptural  sense  of  that  term.  What  is  thus  taught  is  taught  by 
other  forms  of  expression  which  imply  the  expiatory  character  of 
his  death,  or  his  priestly  function  of  making  satisfaction  for  sin. 
Thus  in  Hebrews  ix.  28,  it  is  said,  "  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear 
the  sins  of  many."'  This  is  a  quotation  from  Isaiah  liii.  12,  where 
the  same  word  is  used  in  the  Septuagint  that  the  Apostle  here 
employs.  The  meaning  of  tiie  Scriptural  phrase  "  to  bear  sin  " 
has  already  been  sufficiently  discussed.  Robinson,  who  will  not  be 
suspected  of  theological  bias,  defines,  in  his  "  Greek  Lexicon,"  the 

word    in    question    (^dvac/)e/uco)    in    the    formula    dveveyKe^i'   ras    a/xapTia^ 

TjfjLwv,  "  to  bear  up  our  sins,  to  take  upon  oneself  and  bear  our  sms, 
i.  e.,  to  bear  the  penalty  of  sin,  to  make  expiation  for  sin."  This 
is  the  sense  in  which  the  sacrifices  of  old  were  said  to  bear  the  sins 
of  the  people,  and  in  which  it  was  said  that  one  man,  in  God's  deal- 
ings with  his  theocratic  people,  should  not  bear  the  sins  of  another. 
Delitzsch,  on  Hebrews  ix.  28,  says,^  "  This  assumption  of  the 
sufferings  which  the  sins  of  men  had  caused,  into  fellowship  with 
whom  He  had  entered,  this  bearing  as  a  substitute  the  punishment 
of  sins  not  his  own,  this  expiatory  suffering  for  the  sins  of  others,  is 
precisely  what  at'eveyKelv  djuaprtas  ttoAAcui/  in  this  passage  means,  and 
is  the  sense  intended  in  the  Italic  and  Vulgate  versions  ;  '  ad  multo- 
rum  exhaurienda  peccata.'  "  He  quotes  with  approbation  the  com- 
ment of  Seb.  Schmidt :  "  Quia  mors  in  hominibus  pcena  est,  Christus 
oblatus  est  moriendo,  ut  morte  sua  portaret  omnium  hominum  pec- 
cata h.  e.  omnes  peccatorum  poenas  ext^quaret  satisfaciendo."  ^ 

Nearly  the  same  language  is  used  by  the  Apostle  Peter  (First 
Epistle,  ii.  24).  "Who  his  own  self  bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body 
on  the  tree."  Whether  dm^epw  here  means  sufferre,  to  bear  or 
endure,  or  sursum  ferre,  to  carry  up,  the  sense  is  the  same.  Only 
the  figure  is  altered.  Christ  bore  the  guilt  of  our  sins.  This  is 
the  burden  which  He  sustained  ;  or  which  He  carried  up  with  Him 
when  He  ascended  the  cross.  In  the  parallel  passage  in  Isaiah  liii. 
11,  evidently  in  the  Apostle's  mind,  the  words  are  in  the  Septua- 
gint, TCis  djuaprtas  avrw  auros  dvotcrct,  where  in  Hebrew  binD'^    is    USc'd. 

which  appears  decisive  in  favour  of  the  rendering  in  our  version, 
He  "  bare  our  sins,"  as  b^D  always  means  to  bear  as  a  burden. 
As  to  the  doctrinal  meaning  of  this  passage  commentators  of  almost 
all  classes  agree.  Wahl,  in  his  "  Lexicon,"  on  the  word  di/a</)epa), 
referring  to  this  place,  makes  it  mean  "  peccatorum  poenam  et  rea- 

1  Page  442. 

2  Commentnry  on  Hebrews,  Leipzig,  1722. 


§6.]  PROOF   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  513 

turn  ultro  in  se  susciplt."  Bretschneider  (Rationalist)  thus  defines 
the    word,   "  attollo  et   mihi   impono,  i.  g,,  impositum  mihi  porto, 

tropice  de  poenis  :  poenain  susceptain  kio ;  Heb.  ix.  28 Vide 

etiam  Num.  xiv.  33,  apoCa-ova-L  rrjv  Tcupviiav  vixuiv,  pcena  vestrae  perfidiae 
illis  persolvenda  est."  Wegscheider,  the  chief  of  the  systematic 
theologians  among  the  Rationalists,^  referring  to  this  passage,  1 
Peter  ii.  24,  says  that  almost  all  the  New  Testament  writers  regard 
the  death  of  Christ  "-tanquam  [mortem]  expiatoriam,  eandemque 
vicariam,  velut  poenam  peccatorum  hominum  omnium  ab  ipso  sus- 
ceptam,  etc."  Calvin  does  not  go  beyond  these  Rationalists  ;  his 
comment  is,  "  Sicuti  sub  lege  peccatoi',  ut  reatu  solvei'etur,  victimam 
substituebat  suo  loco  :  ita  Christus  maledictionem  peccatis  nostris 
debitam  in  se  suscepit,  ut  ea  coram  Deo  expiaret.  Hoc  beneficium 
sophistae  in  suis  scholis,  quantum  possunt,  obscurant." 

Another  form  of  expression  used  by  the  sacred  writers  clearly 
teaches  the  expiatory  character  of  Christ's  work.  Under  the  old 
economy,  the  great  function  of  the  high  priest  was  to  make  expia- 
tion for  sin,  and  thereby  restore  the  people  to  the  favour  of  God, 
and  secure  for  them  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  under  which  they 
lived.  All  this  was  typical  of  Christ  and  of  his  work.  He  came 
to  save  his  people  from  their  sins,  to  restore  them  to  the  favour  of 
God,  and  to  secure  for  them  the  enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  the 
new  and  better  covenant  of  which  He  is  the  mediator.  He,  there- 
fore, assumed  our  nature  in  order  tliat  He  might  die,  and  by  death 
effect  our  reconciliation  with  God.  For  as  He  did  not  undertake 
the  redemption  of  angels,  but  the  redemption  of  man,  it  was  the 
nature  of  man  that  He  assumed.  He  was  made  in  all  things  like 
unto  his  brethren,  that  He  might  be  a  merciful  and  faithful  high 
priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  ei's  to  tXao-Keo-^at  ras  a/xapTtas  toC 
Xaov,  to  make  expiation  for  the  sins  of  the  people.  The  word  lAacr- 
Ko/xai.  (or  e^tXao-Ko/xat)  is  the  technical  word  in  Hellenistic  Greek 
to  express  the  idea  of  expiation.  In  common  Greek,  the  word 
means  propitium  reddere,  and  in  the  passive  form  it  is  used  in  this 
sense  in  the  Septuagint  as  in  Psalm  Ixxix.  9.  But  in  the  middle  and 
deponent  foi'm  followed  by  tlie  word  sins  in  the  accusative,  it  always 
expresses  the  act  by  which  that  in  sin  is  removed  which  hinders 
God  from  being  propitious.  This  is  the  precise  idea  of  expiation. 
Hence  the  word  is  so  constantly  rendered  in  the  Vulgate  by  expiare^ 
and  is  in  Greek  the  rendering  of  -i^S.  Hence  Christ  as  He  who 
renders  God  propitious  to  us  is  called  the  tAacr/x,os  Trepl  rwr  afxapTtw 
rjfiwv  in  1  John  ii.  2,  and  lAaor^ptov  in  Romans  iii.  25. 

1   Jnstitutioncs  Thtvloyke,  §  136,  5th  edit.  Halle,  1826,  p.  424. 
VOL.  II.  33 


514        PART  III.     Ch.  VII.  —  satisfaction   OF   CHRIST. 

Still  another  form  in  which  the  doctrine  of  expiation  is  taught  is 
found  in  those  passages  wliich  refer  our  reconciliation  to  God  to 
the  death  of  Christ.  The  Greek  word  used  to  express  this  idea  in 
Romans  v.  10  ;  2  Corinthians  v.  18,  19,  20,  is  KaTaXXdaatw,  to  ex- 
change, or  to  change  the  relation  of  one  person  to  another,  from 
enmity  to  friendship.  In  Ephesians  ii.  16 ;  Colossians  i.  20,  21, 
the  word  used  is  aTroKaToAXaTTeiv,  only  an  intensive  form,  to  recon- 
cile fully.  When  two  parties  are  at  enmity  a  reconciliation  may 
be  effected  by  a  change  in  either  or  in  both.  When,  therefore,  it 
is  said  that  we  are  reconciled  to  God,  it  only  means  that  peace  is 
restored  between  Him  and  us.  Whether  this  is  effected  by  our 
enmity  towards  Him  being  removed,  or  by  his  justice  in  regard  to 
us  being  satisfied,  or  whether  both  ideas  are  in  any  case  included, 
depends  on  the  context  where  the  word  occurs,  and  on  the  anal- 
ogy of  Scripture.  In  the  chief  passage,  Romans  v.  10,  the  obvious 
meaning  is  that  the  reconciliation  is  effected  by  God's  justice  being 
satisfied,  so  that  He  can  be  favourable  to  us  in  consistency  with  his 
own  nature.     This  is  plain,  — 

1.  Because  the  means  by  which  the  reconciliation  is  effected  is 
"  the  death  of  his  Son."  The  design  of  sacrificial  death  is  expia- 
tion. It  would  be  to  do  violence  to  all  Scriptural  usage  to  make 
the  proximate  design  and  effect  of  a  sacrifice  the  removal  of  the 
sinner's  enmity  to  God. 

2.  "  Being  reconciled  by  the  death  of  his  Son,"  in  verse  10,  is 
parallel  to  the  clause  "  being  justified  by  his  blood  "  in  verse  9. 
The  one  is  exchanged  for  the  other,  as  different  forms  of  expressing 
the  same  idea.  But  justification  is  not  sanctification.  It  does  not 
express  a  subjective  change  in  the  sinner.  And,  therefore,  the 
reconciliation  here  spoken  of  cannot  express  any  such  change. 

3.  Those  reconciled  are  declared  to  be  e^Opot,  in  the  passive  sense 
of  the  word,  "those  who  are  the  objects  of  God's  just  displeasure." 
They  are  guilty.  Justice  demands  their  punishment.  The  death 
of  Chi'ist,  as  satisfying  justice,  reconciles  God  to  us ;  effects  peace, 
so  that  we  can  be  received  into  favour. 

4.  What  is  here  taught  is  explained  by  all  those  passages  which 
teach  the  method  by  which  the  reconciliation  of  God  and  man  is 
effected,  namely,  by  the  expiation  of  sin.  Meyer,  on  this  passage, 
says,  '^  KaTrjWayrjixev  and  KaraXXayivm  must  of  necessity  be  understood 
passively :  ausgesohnt  mit  Gott,  atoned  for  in  the  sight  of  God  ; 
so  that  he  no  longer  is  hostile  to  us ;  he  has  laid  aside  his  anger, 
and  we  are  made  partakers  of  his  grace  and  favour."  T^^a  same 
doctrine  is  taught  in  Ephesians  ii.  16.     "  That  he  might  reconcile 


§6.]  PROOF   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  515 

both  unto  God  in  one  body  by  the  cross."  Here  again  the  recon- 
cihation  of  God  with  man  is  effected  by  the  cross  or  deatli  of  Christ, 
which,  removing  the  necessity  for  the  punishment  of  sinners,  ren- 
ders it  possible  for  God  to  manifest  towards  them  his  love.  The 
change  is  not  in  man,  but,  humanly  speaking,  in  God  ;  a  change 
from  the  purpose  to  punish  to  a  purpose  to  pardon  and  save.  There 
is,  so  to  speak,  a  reconciliation  of  God's  justice  and  of  his  love  ef- 
fected by  Christ's  bearing  the  penalty  in  our  stead.  In  2  Corinth- 
ians v.  18,  it  is  said,  God  "  hath  reconciled  us  to  himself  by  Jesus 
Christ,  and  hath  given  to  us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation."  This 
does  not  mean  that  God  changed  our  heart,  and  made  us  love  Him, 
and  appointed  the  Apostle  to  announce  that  fact.  It  can  only  mean 
that  through  Christ,  through  what  He  did  and  suffered  for  us, 
peace  is  restored  between  God  and  man,  who  is  able  and  willing 
to  be  gracious.  This  is  the  gospel  which  Paul  was  commissioned 
to  announce,  namely,  as  follows  in  the  next  verse,  God  is  bringing 
about  peace  ;  He  was  in  Christ  effecting  this  peace,  and  now  is 
ready  to  forgive  sin,  L  e.,  not  to  impute  unto  men  their  trespasses; 
and  therefore  the  Apostle  urges  his  readers  to  embrace  this  offer 
of  mercy,  to  be  reconciled  unto  God;  ^.  e.,  to  accept  his  overture 
of  reconciliation.  For  it  has  a  sure  foundation.  It  rests  on  the 
substitution  and  vicarious  death  of  Christ.  He  was  made  sin  for 
us,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  Him.  It  is 
impossible,  therefore,  that  the  reconciliation  of  which  the  Apostles 
speak  as  effected  by  the  cross  or  death  of  Christ,  should,  in  its  pri- 
mary and  main  aspect,  be  a  subjective  change  in  us  from  enmity 
to  the  love  of  God.  It  is  such  a  reconciliation  as  makes  God  our 
friend ;  a  reconciliation  which  enables  Him  to  pardon  and  save 
sinners,  and  which  they  are  called  upon  most  gratefully  to  embrace. 
It  is  clearly,  therefore,  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament,  that 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  saves  his  people  by  acting  for  them  the  part 
of  a  priest.  For  this  office  He  had  all  the  requisite  qualifications  ; 
He  was  thereto  duly  appointed,  and  He  performed  all  its  functions. 
He  was  an  expiatory  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  men.  He  is  not  only 
repeatedly  declared  to  be  a  sin  offering  in  the  Old  Testament  sense 
of  that  term  ;  but  He  is  said  to  have  borne  our  sins  ;  to  have  made 
expiation  for  the  sina  of  the  people  ;  and  to  have  reconciled  us, 
who  were  the  just  objects  of  the  divine  wrath,  to  God  by  his 
death,  by  his  cross,  by  the  sacrifice  of  Himself.  These  representa- 
tions are  so  frequent  ;  they  are  so  formally  stated,  so  illustrated, 
and  so  applied,  as  to  render  them  characteristic.  They  constitute 
the  essential  element  of  the  Scriptural  doctrine  concerning  the 
method  of  salvation. 


516       PART  III.     Ch.   VII.  —  satisfaction   OF   CHRIST. 

Christ  our  Redeemer. 
There  is  a  third  class  of  passages  equally  numerous  and  equally 
important.  Christ  is  not  only  set  forth  as  a  Priest  and  as  a  sacri- 
fice, but  also  as  a  Redeemer,  and  his  work  as  a  Redemption.  Re- 
demption is  deliverance  from  evil  by  the  payment  of  a  ransom. 
This  idea  is  expressed  by  the  words  dTroAvVpwcns,  from  XvTpov,  and 
the  verbs  Avrpow,  dyo/aa^o)  (Jto  purchase')^  and  i^ayopd^m  (to  buy  from  ^ 
or  deliver  out  of  the  possession  or  power  of  any  one  by  purchase). 
The  price  or  ransom  paid  for  our  redemption  is  always  said  to  be 
Christ  himself,  his  blood,  his  death.  As  the  evils  consequent  on  our 
apostasy  from  God  are  manifold,  Christ's  work  as  a  Redeemer  is 
presented  in  manifold  relations  in  the  word  of  God. 

Redemption  from  the  Penalty  of  the  Law. 

1.  The  first  and  most  obvious  consequence  of  sin,  is  subjection 
to  the  penalty  of  the  law.  The  wages  of  sin  is  death.  Every  sin 
of  necessity  subjects  the  sinner  to  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God. 
The  first  step,  therefore,  in  the  salvation  of  sinners,  is  their  re- 
demption from  that  curse.  Until  this  is  done  they  are  of  necessity 
separated  from  God.  But  alienation  from  Him  of  necessity  in- 
volves both  misery  and  subjection  to  the  power  of  sin.  So  long  as 
men  are  under  the  curse,  they  are  cut  off  from  the  only  source  of 
holiness  and  life.  Such  is  the  doctrine  taught  throughout  the 
Bible,  and  elaborately  in  Romans,  chapters  vi.  and  vii.  In  effecting 
the  salvation  of  his  people,  Christ  "  redeemed  them  from  the  curse 
of  the  law,"  not  by  a  mere  act  of  sovereignty,  or  power ;  not  by 
moral  influence  restoring  them  to  virtue,  but  by  being  "  made  a 
curse  for  them."  No  language  can  be  plainer  than  this.  The  curse 
is  the  penalty  of  the  law.  We  were  subject  to  that  penalty.  Christ 
has  redeemed  us  from  that  subjection  by  being  made  a  curse  for 
us.  (Galatians  iii.  13.)  That  the  infinitely  exalted  and  holy  Son 
of  God  should  be  "  accursed  "  (eTrtKaTtt/aaros),  is  so  awful  an  idea, 
that  the  Apostle  justifies  the  use  of  such  language  by  quoting  the 
declaration  of  Scripture,  "  Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a 
tree."  Suffering,  and  especially  the  suffering  of  death,  judicially 
inflicted  on  account  of  sin,  is  penal.  Those  who  thus  suffer  bear 
the  curse  or  penalty  of  the  law.  The  sufferings  of  Cln-ist,  and 
especially  his  c^^ath  upon  the  cross,  were  neither  calamities,  nor 
chastisements  designed  for  his  own  good,  nor  symbolical  or  didactic 
exhibitions,  designed  to  illustrate  and  enforce  truth,  and  exert  a 
moral  influence  on  others :  these  are  all  subordinate  and  collateral 


§6.]  PROOF   OF  THE  DOCTRINE.  517 

ends.  Nor  were  they  the  mere  natural  consequences  of  his  be- 
coming a  man  and  subjecting  Himself  to  the  common  lot  of  human- 
ity. They  were  divine  inflictions.  It  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise 
Him.  He  was  smitten  of  God  and  afflicted.  These  sufferings 
were  declared  to  be  on  account  of  sin,  not  his  own,  but  ours.  .  He 
bore  our  sins.  The  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  on  Him.  And 
they  were  designed  as  an  expiation,  or  for  the  satisfaction  of  jus- 
tice. They  had,  therefore,  all  the  elements  of  punishment,  and 
consequently  it  was  in  a  strict  and  proper  sense  that  He  was  made 
a  curse  for  us.  All  this  is  included  in  what  the  Apostle  teaches  in 
this  passage  (Gal.  iii.  13),  and  its  immediate  context. 

Redemption  from  the  Law. 

2.  Nearly  allied  to  this  mode  of  representation  are  those  pas- 
sages in  which  Christ  is  said  to  have  delivered  us  from  the  law. 
Redemption  from  bondage  to  the  law  includes  not  only  deliverance 
from  its  penalty,  but  also  from  the  obligation  to  satisfy  its  demands. 
This  is  the  fundamental  idea  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  justification. 
The  law  demands,  and  from  the  nature  of  God,  must  demand  per- 
fect obedience.  It  says.  Do  this  and  live  ;  and,  "  Cursed  is  every 
one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  which  are  written  in  the  book 
of  the  law  to  do  them."  No  man  since  the  fall  is  able  to  fulfil 
these  demands,  yet  He  must  fulfil  them  or  perish.  The  only  pos- 
sible method,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  by  which  men  can  be 
saved,  is  that  they  should  be  delivered  from  this  obligation  of  per- 
fect obedience.  This,  the  Apostle  teaches,  has  been  effected  by 
Christ.  He  was  "  made  under  the  law  to  redeem  them  that  were 
under  the  law."  (Gal.  iv.  4,  5.)  Therefore,  in  Romans  vi.  14, 
he  says  to  believers,  "  Ye  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace." 
And  this  redemption  fi-om  the  law  in  Romans  vii.  4,  is  said  to  be 
"by  the  body  of  Christ."  Hence  we  are  justified  not  by  our  own 
obedience,  but  "  by  the  obedience  "  of  Christ.  (Rom.  v.  18,  19.) 
Redemption  in  this  case  is  not  mere  deliverance,  but  a  true  re- 
demption, i.  e.,  a  deliverance  effected  by  satisfying  all  the  just 
claims  which  are  against  us.  The  Apostle  says,  in  Galatians  iv. 
5,  that  we  are  thus  redeemed  from  the  law,  in  order  "  that  we 
might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons  "  ;  that  is,  be  introduced  into 
the  state  and  relation  of  sons  to  God.  Subjection  to  the  law,  in 
our  case,  was  a  state  of  bondage.  Those  under  the  law  are,  there- 
fore, called  slaves,  BovXoi.  From  this  state  of  bondage  they  are 
redeemed,  and  introduced  into  the  liberty  of  the  sons  of  God. 
This  redemption  includes  freedom  from  a  slavish  spirit,  which  is 


518       PART  III.     Ch.   VII.  —  satisfaction   OF   CHRIST. 

supplanted  by  a  spirit  of  adoption,  filling  the  heart  with  reverence, 
love,  and  confidence  in  God  as  our  reconciled  Father. 

Redemption  from  the  Power  of  Sin. 

3.  As  deliverance  from  the  curse  of  the  law  secures  restoration 
to  the  favour  of  God,  and  as  the  love  of  God  is  the  life  of  the 
soul,  and  restores  us  to  his  image,  therefore  in  redeeming  us  from 
the  curse  of  the  law,  Christ  redeems  us  also  from  the  power  of 
sin.  "  Whosoever  committeth  sin,"  saith  our  Lord,  "  is  the  ser- 
vant (the  slave)  of  sin."  This  is  a  bondage  from  which  no  man 
can  deliver  himself.  To  effect  this  deliverance  was  the  great  ob- 
ject of  the  mission  of  Christ.  He  gave  Himself  that  He  might 
purify  unto  Himself  a  peculiar  people  zealous  of  good  works.  He 
died,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  He  might  bring  us  unto  God. 
He  loved  the  Church  and  gave  Himself  for  it,  that  He  might  pre- 
sent it  unto  Himself  a  glorious  Church,  without  spot  or  wrinkle  or 
any  such  thing.  This  deliverance  from  sin  is  a  true  redemption.  A 
deliverance  effected  by  a  ransom,  or  satisflxction  to  justice,  was  the 
necessary  condition  of  restoration  to  the  favour  of  God;  and  res- 
toration to  his  favour  was  the  necessary  condition  of  holiness. 
Therefore,  it  is  said,  Galatians  i.  3,  Cln-ist  "  gave  Himself  for  our 
sins,  that  He  might  deliver  us  (J-^ik-qTaC)  from  this  pi'esent  evil 
world."  Titus  ii.  14,  "  Who  gave  himself  for  us  that  he  might 
redeem  us  from  all  iniquity."  1  Peter  i.  18,  19,  "  Ye  were  not 
redeenwd  with  corruptible  things,  as  silver  and  gold,  from  your 
vain  conversation  received  by  tradition  from  your  fathers,  but 
with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish 
and  without  spot."  Deliverance  by  sacrifice  was  deliverance  by 
ransom.  Therefore,  here  as  elsewhere,  the  two  modes  of  state- 
ment are  combined.  Thus  our  Lord  in  Matthew  xx.  28,  Mark  x. 
45,  says,  "  The  Son  of  Man  came  ....  to  give  his  life  a  ransom 
for  many  (avrX,  not  merely  vivlp,  TroWoir).  "  The  idea  of  substitution 
cannot  be  more  definitely  expressed.  In  these  passages  our  de- 
liverance is  said  to  be  effected  by  a  ransom.  \\\  Matthew  xxvi.  28, 
our  Lord  says  that  his  blood  was  "  shed  for  many  for  the  remission 
of  sins."  Here  his  death  is  presented  in  the  light  of  a  sacrifice. 
The  two  modes  of  deliverance  are  therefore  identical.  A  ransom 
was  a  satisfaction  to  justice,  and  a  sacrifice  is  a  satisfaction  to  jus- 
tice. 

Redemption  from  the  Power  of  Satan. 

4.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  Christ  redeems  us  from  the  power 
of  Satan.     Satan  is  said  to  be  the  prince  and  god  of  this  world. 


§  6.]  PROOF   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  519 

His  kingdom  is  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  in  which  all  men,  since 
Adam,  are  born,  and  in  which  they  remain,  until  translated  into 
the  kingdom  of  God's  dear  Son.  They  are  his  subjects  "  taken 
captive  by  him  at  his  will."  (2  Tim.  ii.  26.)  The  first  promise 
was  that  the  seed  of  the  woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head. 
Christ  came  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil ;  to  cast  him  down 
from  his  place  of  usurped  power,  to  deliver  those  who  are  subject 
to  his  dominion.  (2  Cor.  iv.  4 ;  Col.  ii.  15.)  The  fact  of  this 
redemption  of  his  people  from  the  power  of  Satan,  and  the  mode 
of  its  accomplishment,  are  clearly  stated  in  Hebrews  ii.  15.  The 
eternal  Son  of  God,  who  in  the  first  chapter  of  that  epistle,  is 
proved  to  be  God,  the  object  of  the  worship  of  angels,  the  creator 
of  heaven  and  earth,  eternal  and  immutable,  in  verse  14  of  the 
second  chapter,  is  said  to  have  become  man,  in  order  "  that  through 
death  He  might  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  and  de- 
liver them  who  through  fear  of  death  were  all  their  lifetime  subject 
to  bondage."  It  is  here  taught,  (1.)  That  men  are  in  a  state  of 
bondao-e  through  fear  of  the  wrath  of  God  on  account  of  sin. 
(2.)  That  in  this  state  they  are  in  subjection  to  Satan  who  has  the 
power  of  death  over  them  ;  i.  e.,  the  ability  and  opportunity  of  in- 
fiicting  on  them  the  sufferings  due  to  them  as  sinners.  (3.)  That 
from  this  state  of  bondage  and  of  subjection  to  the  power  of  Satan, 
they  are  delivered  by  the  death  of  Christ.  His  death,  by  satisfying 
the  justice  of  God,  frees  them  from  the  penalty  of  the  law ;  and 
freedom  from  the  curse  of  the  law  involves  freedom  from  the  power 
of  Satan  to  inflict  its  penalty.  "  The  strength  of  sin  is  the  law.'* 
(1  Cor.  XV.  56.)  What  satisfies  the  law  deprives  sin  of  the  power 
to  subject  us  to  the  wrath  of  God.  And  thus  redemption  from  the 
law,  is  redemption  from  the  curse,  and  consequently  redemption 
from  the  power  of  Satan.  This  Scriptural  representation  took 
such  hold  of  the  imagination  of  many  of  the  early  fathers,  that 
they  dwelt  upon  it,  almost  to  the  exclusion  of  other  and  more  im- 
portant aspects  of  the  work  of  Christ.  They  dallied  with  it  and 
wrought  it  out  into  many  fanciful  theories.  These  theories  have 
passed  away  ;  the  Scriptural  truth  which  underlay  them,  remains. 
Christ  is  our  Redeemer  from  the  power  of  Satan,  as  well  as  from 
the  curse  of  the  law,  and  from  the  dominion  of  sin.  And  if  a  Re- 
deemer, the  deliverance  which  He  effected  was  by  means  of  a 
ransom.  Hence  He  is  often  said  to  have  purchased  his  people. 
They  are  his  because  He  bought  them.  "  Know  ye  not  that  .... 
ye  are  not  your  own  ?  "  says  the  Apostle,  "  For  ye  are  bought 
with  a  price."     (1  Cor.  vi.  20.)     God,  in  Acts  xx.  28,  is  said 


520      PART  III.     Ch.   VII.  —  satisfaction   OF   CHRIST. 

to  have  purchased  the  Church  "  with  his  own  blood."  "  Ye  were 
redeemed  (dehvered  by  purchase)  ....  with  the  precious  blood 
of  Christ."  (1  Pet.  i.  18,  19.)  "  Thou  art  worthy  ....  for 
thou  has  purchased  us  (^yo'pao-as)  for  God  by  thy  blood."  (Rev. 
V.  9.) 

Final  Redemption  from  all  Evil. 

5.  Christ  redeems  us  not  only  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  from 
the  law  itself  as  a  covenant  of  works,  from  the  power  of  sin,  and 
from  the  dominion  of  Satan,  but  also  from  all  evil.  This  evil 
is  the  consequence  of  the  curse  of  the  law,  and  being  redeemed 
from  that  we  are  delivered  from  all  evil.  Hence  the  word  redemp- 
tion is  often  used  for  the  sum  of  all  the  benefits  of  Christ's  work, 
or  for  the  consummation  of  the  great  scheme  of  salvation.  Thus 
our  Lord  says,  Luke  xxi.  28,  that  when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  ap- 
pear in  his  glory,  then  his  disciples  may  be  sure  that  their  "  redemp- 
tion draweth  nigh."  They  are  sealed  unto  the  day  of  redemption. 
(Eph.  i.  14.)  Christ  has  "  obtained  eternal  redemption."  (Heb. 
ix.  12.)  Believers  are  represented  as  waiting  for  their  redemp- 
tion.    (Rom.  viii.  23.) 

It  is  therefore  the  plain  doctrine  of  Scripture  that,  as  before  said, 
Christ  saves  us  neither  by  the  mere  exercise  of  power,  nor  by  his 
doctrine,  nor  by  his  example,  nor  by  the  moral  influence  which  He 
exerted,  nor  by  any  subjective  influence  on  his  people,  whether 
natural  or  mystical,  but  as  a  satisfaction  to  divine  justice,  as  an 
expiation  for  sin  and  as  a  ransom  from  the  curse  and  authority  of 
the  law,  thus  reconciling  us  to  God,  by  making  it  consistent  with 
his  perfections  to  exercise  mercy  toward  sinners,  and  then  renew- 
ing them  after  his  own  image,  and  finally  exalting  them  to  all  the 
dignity,  excellence,  and  blessedness  of  the  sons  of  God. 

Argument  from  Related  Doctrines. 

All  the  doctrines  of  grace  are  intimately  connected.  They  stand 
in  such  relation  to  each  other,  that  one  of  necessity  supposes  the 
truth  of  the  others.  The  common  Church  doctrine  of  the  satisfac- 
tion of  Christ,  therefore,  is  not  an  isolated  doctrine.  It  is  assumed 
in  all  that  the  Scriptures  teach  of  the  relation  between  Christ  and 
his  people  ;  of  the  condition  on  which  our  interest  in  his  redemption 
is  suspended  ;  and  of  the  nature  of  the  benefits  of  that  redemption. 

1.  No  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  relating  to  the  plan  of  salvation, 
is  more  plainly  taught  or  more  wide  reaching  than  that  which 
concerns  the  union  between  Christ  and  his  people.  That  union, 
in  one   aspect,  was  from   eternity,   we  were  in    Him  before    the 


§6.]  PROOF   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  521 

foundation  of  the  world ;  given  to  Him  of  the  Father,  to  redeem 
from  the  estate  of  sin  and  misery,  into  which  it  was  foreseen 
our  race  would  by  transgression  fall.  It  was  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  this  purpose  of  mercy  that  He  assumed  our  nature,  was 
born  of  a  woman,  and  did  and  suffered  all  that  He  was  called  upon 
to  do  and  to  endure  in  working  out  our  salvation.  He  did  not, 
therefore,  come  into  the  world  for  Himself  It  was  not  to  work  out 
a  righteousness  of  his  own  to  entitle  Him  to  the  exaltation  and 
power  which  in  our  nature  He  now  enjoys.  In  virtue  of  the  God- 
head of  his  personality.  He  was  of  necessity  infinitely  exalted  above 
all  creatures.  He  came  for  us.  He  came  as  a  representative. 
He  came  in  the  same  relation  to  his  people,  which  Adam,  in  the 
original  covenant,  bore  to  the  whole  race.  He  came  to  take  their 
place  ;  to  be  their  substitute,  to  do  for  them,  and  in  their  name, 
what  they  could  not  do  for  themselves.  All  He  did,  therefore, 
was  vicarious  ;  his  obedience  and  his  sufferings.  The  parallel  be- 
tween Adam  and  Christ,  the  two  great  representatives  of  man,  the 
two  federal  heads,  the  one  of  all  his  natural  descendants,  the  other 
of  all  given  Him  by  the  Father,  is  carried  out  into  its  details  in 
Romans  v.  12—21.  It  is  assumed  or  imj)Hed,  however,  everywhere 
else  in  the  sacred  volume.  What  Adam  did,  in  his  federal  capac- 
ity, was  in  law  and  justice  regarded  as  done  by  all  whom  he  repre- 
sented. And  so  all  that  Christ  did  and  suffered  as  a  federal  head, 
was  in  law  and  justice  done  or  suffered  by  his  people.  Therefore, 
as  we  were  condemned  for  the  disobedience  of  Adam,  so  we  are 
justified  for  the  obedience  of  Christ.  As  in  Adam  all  died,  so  in 
Christ  are  all  made  alive.  Hence  Christ's  death  is  said  to  be  our 
death,  and  we  are  said  to  rise  with  Him,  to  live  with  Him,  and  to 
be  exalted,  in  our  measure,  in  his  exaltation.  He  is  the  head  and 
we  are  the  body.  The  acts  of  the  head,  are  the  acts  of  the  whole 
mystical  person.  The  ideas,  therefore,  of  legal  substitution,  of 
vicarious  obedience  and  punishment,  of  the  satisfaction  of  justice 
by  one  for  all,  underlie  and  pervade  the  whole  scheme  of  redemp- 
tion. They  can  no  more  be  separated  from  that  scheme  than  the 
warp  can  be  separated  from  the  woof  without  destroying  the  whole 
texture. 

2.  In  like  manner  these  same  truths  are  implied  in  what  sinners 
are  required  to  do  in  order  to  become  the  subjects  of  the  redemp- 
tion of  Christ.  It  is  not  enough  that  we  should  receive  his  doc- 
trines ;  or  endeavour  to  regulate  our  lives  by  his  moral  precepts  ; 
or  that  we  confide  in  his  protection,  or  submit  to  his  control  as  one 
into  whose  hands  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  has  been  com- 


522       PART  in.     Ch.   Vn.  —  satisfaction   of   CHRIST. 

mitted.  It  is  not  enough  that  we  should  open  our  hearts  to  all  the 
influences  for  good  which  flow  from  his  person  or  his  work.  We 
must  trust  in  Him.  We  must  renounce  our  own  righteousness, 
and  confide  in  his  for  our  acceptance  with  God.  We  must  give 
up  the  idea  that  we  can  satisfy  the  demands  of  God's  justice  and 
law,  by  anything  we  can  do,  suffer,  or  experience,  and  rely  exclu- 
sively on  what  He,  as  our  representative,  substitute,  and  surety, 
has  done  and  suffered  in  our  stead.  This  is  what  tlie  gospel  de- 
mands. And  this,  the  world  over,  is  precisely  what  every  true 
believer,  no  matter  what  his  theological  theories  may  be,  actually 
does.  But  this  act  of  self-renunciation  and  of  faith  in  Christ  as  the 
ground  of  our  forgiveness  and  acceptance  with  God,  supposes  Him 
to  be  our  substitute,  who  has  satisfied  all  the  demands  of  law  and 
justice  in  our  stead. 

3.  If  we  turn  to  the  Scriptural  account  of  the  benefits  which  we 
receive  from  Christ,  we  find  that  this  view  of  the  nature  of  his 
work,  is  therein  necessarily  implied.  We  are  justified  through 
Him.  He  is  our  righteousness.  We  are  made  the  righteousness 
of  God  in  Him.  But  justification  is  not  a  subjective  work.  It  is 
not  sanctlfication.  It  is  not  a  change  wrought  in  us  either  naturally 
or  supernaturally.  It  is  not  the  mere  executive  act  of  a  sovereign, 
suspending  the  action  of  the  law,  or  granting  pardon  to  the  guilty. 
It  is  the  opposite  of  condemnation.  It  is  a  declaration  that  the 
claims  of  justice  are  satisfied.  Tiiis  is  the  uniform  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  words  employed  in  Scripture,  and  of  the  cor- 
responding words  in  all  other  languages,  as  far  as  those  languages 
are  cultivated  to  express  what  passes  in  the  consciousness  of  men. 
But  if  God,  in  justifying  sinners,  declares  that  with  regard  to  them 
the  claims  of  justice  are  satisfied,  it  confessedly  is  not  on  the  ground 
that  the  sinner  himself  has  made  tliat  satisfaction,  but  that  Christ 
has  made  it  in  his  behalf. 

The  doctrine  of  sanctification  also,  as  presented  in  the  Scriptures, 
is  founded  on  the  substitution  of  Christ.  Sanctification  is  not  a  work 
of  nature,  but  a  work  of  grace.  It  is  a  transformation  of  character 
effected  not  by  moral  influences,  but  supernaturally  by  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  although  on  that  account  only  the  more  rationally.  The 
first  step  in  the  process  is  deliverance  from  the  curse  of  the  law  bv 
the  body,  or  death  of  Christ.  Then  God  being  reconciled.  He  ad- 
mits us  into  fellowship  with  Himself.  But  as  the  sinner  is  only 
imperfectly  sanctified,  he  is  still  in  his  state  and  acts  far  from  being 
in  himself  an  object  of  the  divine  complacency.  It  is  only  as  united 
to  Christ  and  represented  by  Him,  that  he  enjoys  the  continuance 


§6.]  PROOF   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  523 

of  the  divine  favour,  which  is  his  life,  and  constantly  receives  fi'om 
Him  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  So  that  the  life  that  the  believer 
lives,  is  Christ  living  in  him.  Thus  in  the  whole  process  of  salva- 
tion the  ideas  of  substitution,  of  representation,  of  Christ's  being  and 
doing  for  us,  all  that  we  are  required  to  be  and  to  do,  are  of  neces- 
sity involved.  And  even  to  the  last  we  are  saved  only  in  Him. 
It  is  in  virtue  of  this  union  that  believers  are  raised  from  the  dead, 
admitted  into  heaven,  and  receive  the  crown  of  eternal  life.  It  is 
not  for  what  they  have  done,  nor  for  what  they  have  been  made, 
but  solely  for  what  has  been  done  in  their  stead  that  they  are  made 
partakers  of  his  life,  and,  ultimately,  of  his  glory. 

Argument  from  the  Religious  Experience  of  Believers. 

By  the  religious  experience  of  Christians  is  meant  those  states 
and  acts  of  the  mind  produced  by  "  the  things  of  the  Spirit,"  or 
by  the  truths  of  God's  Word  as  revealed  and  applied  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  We  are  clearly  taught  in  Scripture  that  the  truth  is  not 
only  objectively  presented  in  the  Word,  but  that  it  is  the  gracious 
office  of  the  Spirit,  as  a  teacher  and  guide,  to  lead  the  people  of 
God  properly  to  understand  the  truths  thus  outwardly  revealed,  and 
to  cause  them  to  produce  their  proper  effect  on  the  reason,  the  feel- 
ings, the  conscience,  and  the  life.  What  the  Holy  Spirit  thus  leads 
the  people  of  God  to  believe  must  be  true.  No  man  however  is 
authorized  to  appeal  to  his  own  inward  experience  as  a  test  of  truth 
for  others.  His  experience  may  be,  and  in  most  cases  is,  determined 
more  or  less  by  his  peculiar  training,  his  own  modes  of  thinking, 
and  diverse  other  modifying  influences.  But  this  does  not  destroy 
the  value  of  religious  experience  as  a  guide  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth.  It  has  an  authority  second  only  to  that  of  the  Word  of  God. 
One  great  source  of  error  in  theology  has  always  been  the  neglect 
of  this  inward  guide.  Men  have  formed  their  opinions,  or  framed 
their  doctrines  on  philosophical  principles,  or  moral  axioms,  and 
thus  have  been  led  to  adopt  conclusions  which  contradict  the  in- 
ward teachings  of  the  Spirit,  and  even  their  own  religious  con- 
sciousness. The  only  question  is.  How  can  we  distinguish  the 
human  from  the  divine  ?  How  can  we  determine  what  in  our 
experience  is  due  to  the  teaching  of  the  Spirit,  and  what  to  other 
influences  ?  The  answer  to  these  questions  is,  (1.)  That  what  is 
conformed  to  the  infallible  standard  in  the  Scriptures,  is  genuine, 
and  what  is  not  thus  conformed  is  spurious.  The  Bible  contains 
not  only  the  truths  themselves,  but  a  record  of  the  effects  produced 
on  the  mind  when  they  are  applied  by  the  Holy  Spirit.     (2.)  An- 


524       PART  m.     Ch.   Vn.  —  satisfaction   of   CHRIST. 

other  test  is  universality.  What  all  true  Christians  experience 
must  be  referred  to  a  cause  common  to  all.  It  cannot  be  accounted 
for  by  what  is  peculiar  to  individuals  or  to  denominations.  (3.)  A 
subordinate  test,  but  one  of  great  value  to  the  individual,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  nature  of  the  experience  itself,  and  its  effects  upon  the 
heart  and  life.  A  religious  experience  which  makes  a  man  self- 
complacent,  self-righteous,  proud,  censorious,  and  persecuting,  is 
certaiidy  not  to  be  I'eferred  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness  and  love.  But 
if  a  man's  experience  renders  liim  humble,  meek,  contrite,  forgiving, 
and  long-suffering ;  if  it  leads  him  to  believe  all  things  and  hope 
all  things ;  if  it  renders  him  spiritually'  and  heavenly  minded  ;  if  it 
makes  it  Christ  for  him  to  live  ;  in  short,  if  it  produces  the  same 
effect  on  him  that  the  truth  produced  on  the  prophets  and  apostles, 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  is  due  to  the  teaching  and  influence 
of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

It  is  certainly  an  unanswerable  argument  in  favour  of  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  for  example,  as  a  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  that  all  true 
Christians  look  up  to  Christ  as  God  ;  that  they  render  Him  the 
adoration,  the  love,  the  confidence,  the  submission,  and  the  devo- 
tion which  are  due  to  God  alone,  and  which  the  apprehension  of 
divine  perfection  only  can  produce.  It  is  certainly  a  proof  that  the 
Scriptures  teach  that  man  is  a  fallen  being,  that  he  is  guilty  and 
defiled  by  sin,  that  he  is  utterly  unable  to  free  himself  from  the 
burden  and  power  of  sin,  that  he  is  dependent  on  the  grace  of  God 
and  the  power  of  the  Spirit,  if  these  truths  are  inwrought  into  the 
experience  of  all  true  believers.  In  like  manner,  if  all  Christians 
trust  in  Christ  for  their  salvation  ;  if  they  look  to  Him  as  their 
substitute,  obeying  and  suffering  in  their  stead,  bearing  their  sins, 
sustaining  the  curse  of  the  law  in  their  place  ;  if  they  regard  Him 
as  the  expiatory  sacrifice  to  take  away  their  guilt  and  satisf}'-  the 
justice  of  God  in  their  behalf;  if  they  thank  and  bless  Him  for 
having  given  Himself  as  a  ransom  for  their  redemption  from  the 
penalty  and  obligation  of  the  law  as  prescribing  the  condition  of 
salvation,  and  from  the  dominion  of  Satan,  from  the  power  of  sin 
and  from  all  its  evil  consequences ;  then,  beyond  doubt,  these  are 
the  truths  of  God,  revealed  by  the  Spirit  in  the  word,  and  taught 
by  the  Spirit  to  all  who  submit  to  his  guidance.  That  such  is  the 
experience  of  true  believers  in  relation  to  the  work  of  Christ,  is 
plain,  (1.)  Because  this  is  the  form  and  manner  in  which  holy  men 
of  old  whose  experience  is  recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  expressed 
their  relation  to  Christ  and  their  obligations  to  Him.  He  was  to 
them  an  expiatory  sacrifice  ;  a  ransom  ;  an  IXaafioi  or  propitiation. 


§6.]  PROOF  OF  THE  DOCTRINE.  525 

They  regarded  Him  as  made  a  curse  for  them  ;  as  bearing  their 
punishment,  or  "the  chastisement  of  their  peace."  They  received 
the  "  sprinkHng  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,"  as  the  only  means 
of  being  cleansed  from  the  guilt  of  their  sins,  and  of  restoration  t« 
the  favour  of  God  and  holiness  of  heart  and  life.  This  was  un- 
doubtedly their  experience  as  it  is  recorded  in  the  Bible.  (2.)  In 
the  second  place,  from  the  times  of  the  Apostle  to  the  present  day, 
the  people  of  God  have  had  the  same  inward  convictions  and  feel- 
ings. This  is  clear  from  their  confessions  of  faith,  from  their  litur 
gies  and  prayers,  from  their  hymns,  and  from  all  the  records  of 
their  inward  religious  life.  Let  any  one  look  over  the  hymns  of 
the  Latin  Church,  of  the  Moravians,  the  Lutherans,  the  Reformed, 
of  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Baptists,  Methodists,  Independents, 
and  Congregationalists,  and  see  what  truths  on  this  subject  consti- 
tuted and  now  constitute  the  food  and  atmosphei'e  of  their  religious 
life  :  - 

"  Jesus,  my  God,  Thy  blood  alone  hath  power  sufficient  to  atone." 

"  To  the  dear  fountain  of  Thy  blood,  incarnate  God,  I  fly." 

"  My  soul  looks  back  to  see  the  burdens  Thou  didst  bear. 
When  hanging  on  the  cursed  tree,  and  hopes  her  sins  were  there." 

"  Ein  Lammlein  geht  und  tragt  die  Schuld, 
Der  Welt  and  iiiren  Kinder." 

"Geh  hin,  nimm  dich  der  Siinder  an, 
Die  auch  kein  Engel  retten  kann 
Von  meines  Zornes  Ruthen  ! 
"    Die  Straf '  ist  schwer,  der  Zorn  ist  gross; 
Du  kannst  und  sollst  sie  machen  los 
Durch  Sterben  und  durch  Bluten." 

Does  any  Christian  object  to  such  hymns?  Do  they  not 
express  his  inmost  religious  convictions?  If  thev  do  not  ao-ree 
with  the  speculations  of  his  understanding,  do  they  not  express 
the  feelings  of  his  heart  and  the  necessities  of  his  fallen  nature  ? 
The  speculations  of  the  understanding  are  what  man  teaches  ;  the 
truths  which  call  forth  these  feelings  of  the  heart  are  what  the  Holy 
Ghost  teaches. 

This  argument  may  be  presented  in  another  light.  It  may  be 
shown  that  no  other  theory  of  the  work  of  Christ  does  correspond 
with  the  inward  experience  of  God's  people.  The  theory  that  the 
work  of  Christ  was  didactic  ;  that  it  was  exemplary  ;  that  its  prox- 
imate design  was  to  produce  a  subjective  change  in  the  sinner  or  a 
moral  impression  on  the  minds  of  all  intelligent  creatures  ;  these 
and  other  theories,  contrary  to  the  common  Church  doctrine,  fail 
especially  in  two  points.     First,  they  do  not  account  for  the  inti- 


526       PART  m.     Ch.  Vn.  —  satisfaction   of  CHRIST. 

mate  personal  relation  between  Christ  and  the  believer  which  is 
everywhere  recognized  in  Scripture,  and  wliich  is  so  precious  in  the 
view  of  all  true  Christians.  Secondly,  they  make  no  provision  for 
the  expiation  of  sin,  or  for  satisfying  the  demands  of  a  guilty  con- 
science, which  mere  pardon  never  can  appease. 

Throughout  the  New  Testament,  Christ  is  represented  not  only 
as  the  object  of  worship  and  of  supreme  love  and  devotion,  but  also 
as  being  to  his  people  the  immediate  and  constant  source  of  life  and 
of  all  good.  Not  Christ  as  God,  but  Christ  as  our  Saviour.  He 
is  the  head,  we  are  his  members.  He  is  the  vine,  we  are  the 
branches.  It  is  not  we  that  live,  but  Christ  that  liveth  in  us.  He 
is  made  unto  us  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification,  and  redemp- 
tion. His  blood  cleanses  us  from  all  sins.  He  redeemed  us  from 
the  curse  of  the  law  by  being  made  a  curse  for  us.  He  bore  our 
sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree.  He  is  our  great  High  Priest  who 
ever  lives  to  make  intercession  for  us.  It  would  be  easy  to  show 
from  the  records  of  the  religious  life  of  the  Church  that  believers 
have  ever  regarded  Christ  in  the  light  in  which  He  is  here  pre- 
sented. The  argument  is  that  these  representations  are  not  con- 
sistent with  any  moral  or  governmental  theory  of  the  atonement. 

There  are  two  hymns  which,  perhaps,  beyond  all  others,  are 

dear  to  the  hearts  of  all  Christians  who  speak  the  English  language. 

The  one  written   by  Charles  Wesley,  an  Arminian  ;  the  other  by 

Toplady,  a  Calvinist.     It  is  hard  to  see   what   meaning  can  be 

attached  to  these  hymns  by  those  who  hold  that  Christ  died  simply 

to  teach  us  something,  or   to  make  a   moral  impression  on  us  or 

others.     How  can  they  say,  — 

"  Jesus,  lover  of  my  soul, 
Let  me  to  Thj'  bosom  fly  "  ? 

Why  should  they  fly  to  Him  if  He  be  only  a  teacher  or  moral 
reformer  ?     What  do  they  mean  when  they  say,  — 

"Hide  me,  0  my  Saviour  hide  "  ? 

Hide  from  what?  Not  from  the  vindicatory  justice  of  God,  for 
they  admit  no  such  attribute. 

"  Other  refuge  have  I  none;  " 

refuge  from  what  ? 

"  All  my  trust  on  Thee  is  laid." 

For  what  do  we  trust  Him  ?  According  to  their  theory  He  is  not 
the  ground  of  our  confidence.  It  is  not  for  his  righteousness,  but 
for  our  own  that  we  are  to  be  accepted  by  God.  It  would  seem 
that  those  only  who  hold  the  common  Church  doctrine  can  say,  — 

"  Thou,  O  Christ,  art  all  I  need." 


§  7.]  OBJECTIONS.  527 

All  I  need  as  a  creature,  as  a  sinner,  as  guilty,  as  polluted,  as 
miserable  and  helpless  ;  all  I  need  for  time  or  for  eternity.  So  of 
Toplady's  precious  hymn,  — 

"  Rock  of  ages,  cleft  for  me ;  " 

for  me  personally  and  individually ;  as  Paul  said  he  lived  "  by 
faith  of  the  Son  of  God  who  loved  me,  and  gave  himself  for  we." 

"  Let  the  water  and  the  blood, 
From  Thy  wounded  side  that  flowed; 
Be  of  sin  the  double  cure; 
Cleanse  me  from  its  guilt  and  power." 

Hov^  can  such  language  be  used  by  those  who  deny  the  necessity 
of  expiation ;  wlio  hold  that  guilt  need  not  be  washed  away,  that 
all  that  is  necessary  is  that  we  should  be  made  morally  good  ?  No 
one  can  say, — 

"  ISTothing  in  mj'  hand  I  bring, 
Simply  to  Thy  cross  I  cling," 

who  does  not  believe  that  Christ  "  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body 
on  the  tree." 

It  is  a  historical  fact  that  where  false  theories  of  the  atonement 
prevail,  Christ  and  his  work  are  put  in  the  background.  We  hear 
from  the  pulpits  much  about  God  as  a  moral  governor;  much  about 
the  law  and  obligation,  and  of  the  duty  of  submission  ;  but  little 
about  Christ,  of  the  duty  of  fleeing  to  Him,  of  receiving  Him,  of 
trusting  in  Him,  of  renouncing  our  own  righteousness  that  we 
may  put  on  the  righteousness  of  God ;  and  little  of  our  union  with 
Him,  of  his  living  in  us,  and  of  our  duty  to  live  by  faith  in  Him. 
Thus  new  theories  introduce  a  new  religion. 

§  7.    Objections. 

The  only  legitimate  method  of  controverting  a  doctrine  which 
purports  to  be  founded  on  the  Scriptures  is  the  exegetical.  If  its 
advocates  undertake  to  show  that  it  is  taught  in  the  Bible,  its 
opponents  are  bound  to  prove  that  the  Bible,  understood  agreeably 
to  the  recognized  laws  of  interpretation,  does  not  teach  it.  This 
method,  comparatively  speaking,  is  little  relied  upon,  or  resorted  to 
by  the  adversaries  of  the  Church  doctrine  concerning  the  satisfac- 
tion of  Christ.  Their  main  reliance  is  on  objections  of  two  classes: 
the  one  drawn  from  speculative  or  philosophical  principles  ;  the 
other  from  the  sentiments  or  feelings.  It  is  not  uncommon  for 
modern  writers,  especially  among  the  German  theologians,  to  begin 
the  discussion  of  tills  subject  by  a  review  of  the  Scriptural  state- 
ments Ir.  relation  to  it.     This  is  often  eminently  satisfactory.     It  is 


528       PART  III.     Ch.   VII.  —  satisfaction   OF   CHRIST. 

admitted  that  Christ  saves  us  as  a  priest  bj  offering  Himself  a  sac- 
rifice for  sin  ;  that  He  is  a  priest  and  sin  offering  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment sense  of  those  terms  ;  and  that  a  priest  is  a  mediator,  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  people,  and  an  offerer  of  sacrifices.  It  is  admitted 
that  the  sin  offerings  of  the  old  dispensation  were  expiatory  sacri- 
fices, designed  to  satisfy  the  justice  of  God  and  to  secure  the  resto- 
ration of  his  favour  to  the  sinner.  It  is  admitted  that  expiation 
was  made  by  substitution  and  vicarious  punishment,  that  the  victim 
bore  the  sins  of  the  offerer  and  died  not  only  for  his  benefit,  but  in 
his  place.  It  is  further  admitted  that  all  this  was  designed  to  be 
typical  of  the  priesthood  and  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  that  the  New- 
Testament  teaches  that  these  types  were  fulfilled  in  Him ;  that  He 
was  the  only  true  priest,  and  his  offering  of  Himself  was  the  only 
available  sacrifice  for  sin  ;  that  He  bore  the  sins  of  men ;  made 
expiation  for  their  guilt  by  taking  their  place,  and  sustaining  the 
penalty  of  the  law  and  the  wrath  of  God  in  their  stead ;  and  that 
the  effect  of  his  satisfaction  of  justice  is  that  God  is  in  such  a  sense 
reconciled  to  man,  that  He  can  consistently  pardon  their  sins,  and 
bestow  upon  them  all  saving  blessings.  Having  given  this  exhibi- 
tion of  what  the  Scriptures  teach  on  the  subject,  they  go  on  to 
state  what  the  Fathers  taught ;  how  the  doctrine  was  presented 
during  the  Middle  Ages,  and  afterwards  by  the  Reformers ;  how 
the  Rationalists  and  Supernaturalists  of  the  last  generation  dealt 
with  it ;  and  how  the  modern  speculative  theologians  have  philos- 
ophized about  it ;  and  end,  generally,  by  giving  in  their  adhesion 
to  some  one  of  these  modern  theories  more  or  less  modified.  All 
the  while  there  stand  the  Scriptural  statements  untouched  and 
unrefuted.  They  are  allowed  to  go  for  what  they  are  worth  ;  but 
they  are  not  permitted  to  control  the  writers'  own  convictions. 
This  course  is  adopted  by  different  men  on  different  principles. 
Sometimes  it  is  upon  the  distinct  denial  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
sacred  writers.  They  are  admitted  to  be  honest  and  faithful.  They 
may  or  may  not  have  been  the  recipients  of  a  supernatural  revela- 
tion, but  they  were  fallible  men,  subject  to  all  the  influences  which 
determine  the  modes  of  thought  and  the  expressions  of  the  men 
of  any  given  age  or  nation.  The  sacred  writers  were  Jews,  and 
accustomed  to  a  religion  which  had  priests  and  sacrifices.  It  was, 
therefore,  natural  that  they  should  set  forth  under  figures  and  in 
the  use  of  terms,  borrowed  from  their  own  institutions,  the  truths 
that  Christ  saved  sinners,  and  that  in  the  prosecution  of  that  work 
He  suffered  and  died.  These  truths  may  be  retained,  but  the 
form  in  which  they  are  presented  in  the  Bible  may  be  safely  dis- 
carded. 


§  7.]  OBJECTIONS.  529 

Others,  and  perhaps  the  majority  of  the  most  popular  of  this 
class  of  theologians,  go  further  than  this.  They  are  willing  that 
criticism  and  forced  interpretations  should  make  what  havoc  they 
please  with  the  Bible.  Any  and  every  book  may  be  rejected  from 
the  canon.  Any  and  every  doctrine  may  be  interpreted  out  of 
the  sacred  pages  ;  still  the  only  Christianity  they  value  is  safe. 
Christianity  is  independent  of  any  form  of  doctrine.  It  is  a  life, 
an  inward,  organic  power,  which  remodels  the  soul  ;  which  life  is 
Christianity,  because  it  is  assumed  to  have  its  origin  in  Christ. 

Others  again  act  on  the  j)rinciples  of  that  form  of  rationalism 
which  has  received  the  name  of  Dogmatism.  The  doctrines  and 
facts  of  the  Bible  are  allowed  to  stand  as  true.  They  are  allowed 
to  be  the  proper  modes  of  statement  for  popular  instruction  and 
impression.  But  it  is  assumed  to  be  the  office  of  the  theologian  to 
discover,  present,  and  bring  into  harmony  with  his  system,  the 
philosophical  truths  which  underlie  these  doctrinal  statements  of 
the  Bible.  And  these  philosophical  truths  are  assumed  to  be  the 
substance  of  the  Scriptural  doctrines,  of  which  the  doctrines  them- 
selves are  the  unessential  and  mutable  forms.  Thus  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  is  admitted.  The  form  in  which  it  is  presented  in  the 
Bible  is  regarded  as  its  popular  form,  which  it  may  be  useful  to 
retain  for  the  people.  But  the  real  and  important  truth  which 
it  involves  is,  that  original,  unintelligent,  unconscious  Being  (the 
Father)  comes  to  conscious  existence  in  the  world  (the  Son),  by  an 
eternal  process,  and  returns  by  an  unceasing  flow  into  the  infinite 
(the  Spirit).  It  is  also  admitted  that  God  became  flesh,  but  it  was, 
as  some  say,  in  the  whole  race  of  man  ;  mankind  are  the  manifesta- 
tion of  God  in  the  flesh ;  or,  as  others  say,  the  Church  is  his  body, 
that  is,  the  form  in  which  the  incarnation  is  realized.  Christ  is 
acknowledged  to  be  our  saviour  from  sin,  but  it  is  by  a  purely  sub- 
jective process.  He  introduces  a  new  life  power  into  humanity, 
which  enters  into  conflict  with  the  evil  of  our  nature,  and  after  a 
painful  struggle  overcomes  it.  This  is  called  the  application  of 
philosophy  to  the  explanation  of  Scriptural  doctrines.  It  is  patent, 
however,  that  this  is  not  explanation,  but  substitution.  It  is  the 
substitution  of  the  human  for  the  divine  ;  of  the  thoughts  of  men, 
which  are  mere  vapour,  for  the  thoughts  of  God,  which  are  eternal 
verities.  It  is  giving  a  stone  for  bread,  and  a  scorpion  for  an  egg. 
It  is,  indeed,  a  very  convenient  method  of  getting  rid  of  the 
teachings  of  the  Bible,  while  professing  to  admit  its  authority.  It 
is  important,  however,  to  notice  the  concession  involved  in  these 
modes  of  proceeding.     It  is  acknowledged  that  the  Church  doc- 

VOL.  II.  34 


530       PART   m.     Ch.   Vn.  —  satisfaction    of  CHRIST. 

trine  of  a  true  expiatory  sacrifice  for  sin,  of  a  real  satisfaction  of 
justice  by  means  of  the  vicarious  punishment  of  sin,  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  Scriptures,  as  well  of  the  Old  Testament  as  of  the  New. 
Tiiis  is  all  we  contend  for,  and  all  we  care  for.  If  God  teaches 
this,  men  may  teach  wiiat  they  please. 

Moral  Objections. 

Another  class  of  objections  to  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  satisfac- 
tion, which  may  be  called  philosophical,  although  not  of  the  specu- 
lative kind,  are  those  which  are  founded  on  certain  assumed  moral 
axioms.  It  is  said  to  be  self-evident  that  the  innocent  cannot  be 
guilty  ;  and  if  not  guilty  he  cannot  be  punished,  for  punishment  is 
the  judicial  infliction  of  evil  on  account  of  guilt.  As  the  Church 
doctrine,  while  maintaining  the  perfect  sinlessness  of  Christ,  teaches 
that  He  bore  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  therefore  was  regarded  and 
treated  as  a  sinner,  that  doctrine  assumes  both  an  impossibility  and 
an  act  of  injustice.  It  assumes  that  God  regards  things  as  they  are 
not.  He  regards  the  innocent  as  guilty.  This  is  an  impossibility. 
And  if  possible  for  Him  to  treat  the  innocent  as  guilty,  it  would  be 
an  act  of  gross  injustice.  On  this  class  of  objections  it  may  be  re- 
marked, — 

1.  That  they  avail  nothing  against  the  plain  declaration  of  the 
Scriptures.  If  the  Bible  teaches  that  the  innocent  may  bear  the 
guilt  of  the  actual  transgressor;  that  He  may  endure  the  penalty 
incurred  in  his  place,  then  it  is  in  vain  to  say  that  this  cannot  be 
done. 

2.  If  it  be  said  that  these  moral  objections  render  it  necessary 
to  explain  these  representations  of  Scripture  as  figurative,  or  as 
anthropomorphic  modes  of  expression,  as  when  God  is  said  to  have 
eyes,  to  stand,  or  to  walk,  then  the  reply  is  that  these  representa- 
tions are  so  didactic,  are  so  repeated,  and  are  so  inwrought  into 
the  whole  system  of  Scriptural  doctrine,  that  they  leave  us  no  alter- 
native but  to  receive  them  as  the  truths  of  God,  or  to  reject  the 
Bible  as  his  word. 

3.  Rejecting  the  Bible  does  not  help  the  matter.  We  cannot 
reject  the  facts  of  providence.  Where  is  the  propriety  of  saying 
that  the  innocent  cannot  justly  sufi^er  for  the  guilty,  when  we  see 
that  they  actually  do  thus  suffer  continually,  and  everywhere  since 
the  world  began  ?  There  is  no  moral  principle  asserted  in  the 
Bible,  which  is  not  carried  out  in  providence.  God  says  He  will 
visit  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon  their  children  to  the  third 
and  fourth  generation  of  those  that  hate  Him.     And  so  He  does, 


§  7.]  OBJECTIONS.  531 

and  ever  has  done.  Are  we  so  confident  in  ourselves  as  to  deny- 
that  there  is  a  just  God  who  governs  the  world,  rather  than  admit 
that  the  innocent  may  riglitfully  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  guilty  ? 
In  teaching  the  doctrine  of  legal  substitution,  of  the  transfer  of 
guilt  from  the  transgressor  to  the  innocent,  of  the  satisfaction  of 
justice  by  vicarious  punishment,  the  Bible  asserts  and  assumes  no 
moral  principle  which  does  not  underlie  all  the  providential  deal- 
ino;s  of  God  with  individuals  or  with  nations. 

4.  Men  constantly  deceive  themselves  by  postulating  as  moral 
axioms  what  are  nothing  more  than  the  forms  in  which  their  feel- 
ings or  peculiar  opinions  find  expression.  To  one  man  it  is  an 
axiom  that  a  holy  God  cannot  permit  sin,  or  a  benevolent  God 
allow  his  creatures  to  be  miserable  ;  and  he,  therefore,  infers  either 
that  there  is  no  God,  or  that  He  cannot  control  the  acts  of  free 
agents.  To  another  it  is  self-evidently  true  that  a  free  act  can- 
not be  certain,  and  therefore  that  there  can  be  no  foreordination, 
or  foreknowledge,  or  prediction  of  the  occurrence  of  such  acts. 
To  another,  it  is  self-evident  that  a  merciful  God  cannot  permit 
any  portion  of  his  rational  creatures  to  remain  forever  under  the 
dominion  of  sin  and  suffering.  There  would  be  no  end  of  con- 
troversy, and  no  security  for  any  truth  whatever,  if  the  strong 
personal  convictions  of  individual  minds  be  allowed  to  determine 
what  is,  or  what  is  not  true,  what  the  Bible  may,  and  what  it 
may  not,  be  allowed  to  teach.  It  must  be  admitted,  however, 
that  there  are  moral  intuitions,  founded  on  the  constitution  of  our 
nature,  and  constituting  a  primary  revelation  of  the  nature  of 
God,  which  no  external  revelation  can  possibly  contradict.  The 
authority  of  these  intuitive  truths  is  assumed  or  fully  recognized 
in  the  Bible  itself.  They  have,  however,  their  criteria.  They 
cannot  be  enlarged  or  diminished.  No  man  can  add  to,  or  de- 
tract from,  their  number.  Those  criteria  are,  (1.)  They  are  all 
recognized  in  the  Scriptures  themselves.  (2.)  They  are  univer- 
sally admitted  as  true  by  all  rational  minds.  (3.)  They  cannot 
be  denied.  No  effort  of  the  will,  and  no  sophistry  of  the  under- 
standing can  destroy  their  authority  over  the  reason  and  con- 
science. 

5.  It  is  very  evident  that  the  principle  that  "  the  innocent  can- 
not justly  be  punished  for  the  guilty,"  cannot  stand  the  application 
of  the  above-mentioned  criteria.  So  far  from  being  recognized  in 
the  Bible,  it  is  contrary  to  its  plainest  declarations  and  facts.  So  far 
from  being  universally  received  among  men  as  true,  it  has  never 
been  received  at  all  as  part  of  the  common  faith  of  mankind.     The 


532       PART  in.     Ch.   Vn.  —  satisfaction   of   CHRIST. 

substitution  of  the  innocent  for  the  guilty,  of  victims  for  transgres- 
sors in  sacrifice,  of  one  for  many  ;  the  idea  of  expiation  by  vicarious 
punishment,  has  been  familiar  to  the  human  mind  in  all  ages.  It 
has  been  admitted  not  only  as  possible,  but  as  rational,  and  recog- 
nized as  indicating  the  only  method  by  which  sinful  men  can  be 
reconciled  to  a  just  and  holy  God.  It  is  not,  therefore,  to  be  ad- 
mitted that  it  conflicts  with  any  intuition  of  the  reason  or  of  the 
conscience  ;  on  the  contrary  it  is  congenial  with  both.  It  is  no  doubt 
frequently  the  case  that  opposition  to  this  doctrine  arises  from  a 
misapprehension  of  the  terms  in  which  it  is  expressed.  By  guilt 
many  insist  on  meaning  personal  criminality  and  ill  desert ;  and  by 
punishment  evil  inflicted  on  the  ground  of  such  personal  demerit. 
In  these  senses  of  the  words  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  and  vica- 
rious punishment  would  indeed  involve  an  impossibility.  Moral 
character  cannot  be  transferred.  The  Remonstrants  were  right  in 
saying  that  one  man  cannot  be  good  with  another's  goodness,  any 
more  than  he  can  be  white  with  another's  whiteness.  And  if  pun- 
ishment means  evil  inflicted  on  the  ground  of  personal  demerit, 
then  it  is  a  contradiction  to  say  that  the  innocent  can  be  punished. 
But  if  guilt  expresses  only  the  relation  of  sin  to  justice,  and  is  the 
obligation  under  which  the  sinner  is  placed  to  satisfy  its  demands, 
then  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  things,  nothing  in  the  moral 
nature  of  man,  nothing  in  the  nature  of  God  as  revealed  either  in 
his  providence  or  in  his  word,  which  forbids  the  idea  that  this  obli- 
gation may  on  adequate  grounds  be  transferred  from  one  to  an- 
other, or  assumed  by  one  in  the  place  of  others. 

To  the  head  of  objections  founded  on  assumed  moral  axioms 
belong  those  urged  by  a  large  class 'of  modern,  and  especially  of 
German  theologians.  These  theologians  have  their  peculiar  views 
of  the  nature  of  God,  of  his  relation  to  the  world,  and  of  anthro- 
pology in  all  its  branches,  which  underlie  and  determine  all  their 
theological  doctrines.  It  is  denied  that  Schleiermacher  founded  a 
school ;  but  it  is  certain  that  he  introduced  a  method  of  theologi- 
zing, and  advocated  principles,  which  have  determined  the  charac- 
ter of  the  theology  of  a  large  class  of  men,  not  only  in  Germany, 
but  also  in  England  and  America :  Twesten,  Nitsch,  Liicke,  01s- 
hausen,  Ullmann,  Lange,  Liebner,  and  even  Ebrard  in  Germany ; 
and  Morell  and  Maurice  in  England,  belong  to  this  class  of  writers. 
In  this  country  what  is  known  as  the  "  Mercersburg  Theology  "  is 
the  product  of  the  same  principles.  Everything  which  distinguishes 
that  theology  from  the  theology  of  the  Reformed  Church,  comes 
from  the  introduction  of  these  new  German  speculative  principles. 


§  7.]  OBJECTIONS.  533 

No  two  of  the  writers  above  mentioned  agree  in  all  points.  They 
differ,  however,  only  in  the  length  to  which  they  carry  their  com- 
mon principles  in  modifying  or  overthrowing  the  faith  of  the  Church. 
Ebrard,  one  of  the  best,  because  one  of  the  most  moderate  and  least 
infected  of  the  class,  says  in  the  preface  to  his  "  Dogmatik,"  that  he 
goes  hand  in  hand  with  the  old  Reformed  theology  in  all  points,  and 
that  for  that  reason  he  is  more  true  to  the  principles  of  his  Church, 
as  a  church  of  progress.  He  professes  to  have  carried  that  theology 
forward  by  a  process  of  "  organic  development;  "  and  this  Professor 
Harbaugh  of  Mercersburg,  in  his  late  inaugural  address,  claims  to 
have  been  the  service,  and  still  to  be  the  office  of  the  German  Re- 
formed Church  in  this  country.  It  is  true  that  the  leading  theolo- 
gians of  that  Church,  as  was  perhaps  to  be  expected,  have  given 
themselves  up  to  the  guidance  of  the  German  mind.  All  they  have 
done  has  been  to  incorporate  the  modern  German  philosophy  with 
theology.  Their  advances,  therefore,  have  no  more  worth  than  be- 
longs to  any  other  form  of  human  speculation.  They  do  not  pretend 
to  get  their  peculiar  doctrines  from  the  Bible  ;  they  only  labour  to 
make  the  Bible  agree  with  their  doctrines.  But  this  is  just  as  impos- 
sible as  that  the  Scriptures  should  teach  the  principles  of  modern 
chemistry,  astronomy,  or  geology.  These  philosophical  principles 
had  no  existence  in  the  minds  of  men  when  the  Bible  was  written, 
and  they  have  no  authority  now  but  what  they  get  from  their  hu- 
man authors.  If  they  survive  for  a  generation,  it  will  be  more  than 
similar  speculations  have  in  general  been  able  to  accomplish.^  It 
is, however,  lamentable  to  see  how  even  good  men  allow  themselves 
to  explain  away  the  most  catholic,  and  plainly  revealed  doctrines 
of  the  Bible,  in  obedience  to  the  dictates  of  the  modern  transcen- 
dental philosophy.  What  however  we  have  here  immediately  in 
view  is,  the  objections  which  this  class  of  writers  make  to  the 
Church  form  of  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  in  obedience  to  the 
assumed  moral  axiom  above  mentioned,  namely,  that  the  innocent 
cannot  by  God  be  regarded  and  treated  as  guilty,  or  the  guilty 
regarded  and  treated  as  righteous.  It  is  indeed  true  that  God  can- 
not but  regard  every  person  as  he  really  is.  His  judgments  are 
according  to  truth.  But  this  is  not  inconsistent  with  his  regarding 
Christ,  although  personally  innocent,  as  having  voluntarily  assumed 
our  place  and  undertaken  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  justice  in  our 
place  ;  nor  with  his  regarding    the  believer,  although  personally 

1  Indeed,  already  the  philosophy  of  Schelling,  Hegel,  and  Schleiermacher  seems  to  be 
for  the  rising  men  of  Germany  as  much  a  thing  of  the  past,  as  that  of  the  Hindus  or  the 
Cabala.  The  German  mind  has  swung  round  from  making  spirit  everything,  to  making  it 
nothing. 


534       PART  III.    Ch.   VII.  —  satisfaction   OF   CHRIST. 

undeserving,  as  righteous,  in  the  sense  of  being  free  from  just  ex- 
posure to  condemnation,  on  the  ground  of  the  vicarious  satisfaction 
of  Christ.  This  is  precisely  what  the  Scriptures  affirm  to  be  true, 
and  that  which  believers  in  all  ages  have  made  the  ground  of  their 
hope  toward  God.  This  is  almost  the  identical  proposition  affirmed 
bv  the  Apostle,  when  he  declares  that  on  the  ground  of  the  propi- 
tiation of  Christ,  God  "  can  justify  the  ungodly,"  *•  e.,  declare  the 
unrighteous  to  be  righteous  ;  unrighteous  personally,  but  righteous 
in  that  the  demands  of  justice  in  regard  to  him  are  satisfied.  This 
also  is  precisely  what  the  writers  referred  to  (not  Ebrard  who  does 
not  go  so  far  as  those  with  whom  he  is  classed)  deny.  If  God,  say 
they,  regards  Christ  as  sinful,  He  must  be  really  sinful ;  if  He  pro- 
nounces the  believer  righteous,  he  must  be  truly,  personally,  and 
subjectively  righteous.  As  most  of  these  writers  admit  the  sinless- 
ness  of  Christ,  and  yet  maintain  that  only  sinners  can  be  treated  as 
sinners,  and  only  the  personally  righteous  treated  as  righteous;  and 
as  they  hold  that  imputation  implies  the  real  possession  of  the 
quality,  act,  or  relation  which  is  imputed,  they  are  forced  to  teach 
that  Christ  in  assuming  our  nature  as  guilty  and  fallen,  ipso  facto, 
assumed  all  the  responsibilities  of  men,  and  was  bound  to  answer 
to  the  justice  of  God  for  all  the  sins  which  humanity  had  com- 
mitted. The  doctrine  of  one  class  of  these  writers  is,  that  the 
Logos  in  assuming  our  nature  did  not  become  an  individual,  but 
the  universal  man  ;  He  did  not  take  to  Himself  "  a  true  body  and 
a  reasonable  soul,"  but  the  whole  of  humanity,  or  humanity  as  an 
organic  whole  or  law  of  life  ;  the  individual  dying  for  the  sins  of 
other  individuals,  does  not  satisfy  justice.  When  He  was  nailed 
to  the  cross,  not  an  individual  merely,  but  humanity  itself,  was 
crucified  ;  and,  therefore,  his  sufferings  were  the  sufferings  not  of 
an  individual  man,  but  of  that  which  underlies  all  liuman  individ- 
ualities, and  consequently  avails  for  all  in  whom  humanity  is  indi- 
vidualized. As  Christ  becomes  personally  responsible  for  the  guilt 
which  attaches  to  the  humanity  which  He  assumed,  so  we  become 
personally  righteous  and  entitled,  on  the  ground  of  what  we  are 
or  become,  to  eternal  life,  because,  by  our  union  with  Him,  we 
partake  of  his  humanity  as  well  as  of  his  divinity.  His  thean- 
thropic  nature  is  conveyed  to  us  with  all  its  merits,  excellence,  and 
glories,  as  the  nature  of  Adam  with  its  guilt,  pollution,  and  weak- 
nesses, has  been  transmitted  to  his  posterity.  It  is  in  favour  of  this 
theory  that  the  church  doctrine  of  the  substitution  of  Christ,  the 
innocent  for  the  guilty  ;  of  his  bearing  the  guilt  not  of  his  own 
nature,  but  of  sinners  ;  of  his  suffering  the  penalty  of  the  law  in 


§  7.]  OBJECTIONS.  535 

the  place  of  those  by  whom  it  had  been  incurred,  one  individual  of 
infinite  dignity  dying  in  the  stead  of  the  multitude  of  his  people 
(the  shepherd  for  his  sheep),  is  discarded  and  trodden  under  foot. 
In  reference  to  this  theory,  it  is  sufficient  here  to  remark,  — 

1.  That  it  is  a  mere  speculative,  or  philosophical,  anthropological 
theory.  It  has  no  more  authority  than  the  thousands  of  specula- 
tions vi^hich  the  teeming  mind  of  man  has  produced.  Schleier- 
macher  says  that  man  is  the  form  in  which  the  universal  spirit 
comes  to  consciousness  and  individuality  on  this  earth.  These 
writers  say  that  man  is  the  form  in  which  generic  humanity  is  in- 
dividualized. Every  philosophy  has  its  own  anthropology.  It  is 
evidently  most  unreasonable  and  presumptuous  to  found  the  expla- 
nation of  a  great  Scriptural  doctrine,  which  the  people  are  bound  to 
understand  and  receive,  and  on  which  they  are  required  to  rest 
their  hope  of  salvation,  upon  a  theory  as  to  the  nature  of  man, 
which  has  no  divine  authority,  and  which  not  one  man  in  a  thou- 
sand, perhaps  not  one  in  hundreds  of  thousands,  believes  or  ever 
has  believed.  The  self-confidence  and  self-exaltation  which  such 
a  course  implies,  can  hardly  be  the  fruit  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

2.  The  theory  itself  is  unintelligible.  The  phrases  "  universal 
man,"  and  "  the  whole  of  humanity,"  as  here  used,  have  no  mean- 
ing. To  say  that  "  humanity  itself  was  nailed  to  the  cross,"  con- 
veys no  rational  idea.  By  a  universal  man  might  be  meant  a  uni- 
versal genius,  or  a  man  who  represents  all  mankind  as  Adam  did. 
But  this  is  expressly  repudiated.  By  "  a  universal  man,"  as  dis- 
tinguished from  an  individual  man,  is  intended  a  man  who  includes 
the  whole  of  humanity  in  himself.  Though  this  might  be  said  of 
Adam  when  he  stood  absolutely  alone,  before  the  creation  of  Eve, 
yet  it  cannot  be  said  of  any  one  of  a  multitude  of  men.  A  univer- 
sal man  would  be  a  man  who  included  in  himself  all  human  per- 
sons ;  an  idea  as  monstrous  as  the  modern  doctrine  of  "  the  all- 
personality  of  God." 

In  the  language  of  the  Church,  to  assume  a  nature  is  to  assume 
a  substance  with  its  essential  attributes  and  properties.  Through 
all  ages  in  the  Church  the  words  ^uo-is,  ovaia,  substantia,  and  natura, 
have,  in  relation  to  this  subject,  been  used  interchangeably.  When 
it  is  said  that  the  Logos  assumed  our  nature,  it  is  meant  that  He  took 
into  personal  union  with  Himself  a  substance  or  essence  having  the 
same  essential  properties  which  constitute  us  men.  But  He  did  not 
assume  the  whole  of  that  substance  or  essence.  He  assumed  the 
whole  of  humanity  in  the  sense  of  assuming  all  the  attributes  of 
humanity.    He  took  upon  Him  all  that  was  necessary  to  constitute 


536     PART  m.   Ch.  vn.  —  satisfaction  of  christ. 

Him  "  very  man  "  as  He  was  from  eternity  "  very  God."  This, 
however,  is  not  what  these  writers  mean.  They  say  He  took  upon 
Him  the  whole  of  humanity  so  as  to  be,  not  an  individual,  but  the 
universal  man.  This  is  what  some  of  the  first  of  German  minds 
have  pronounced  to  be  Lhisinn,  i.  e.,  meaningless.  Even  if  the 
idea  of  substance,  although  recognized  by  the  Bible,  the  Church, 
and  mankind,  be  discarded,  and  humanity,  or  human  nature,  be 
defined  as  a  life,  or  organic  force,  or  aggregate  of  certain  forces, 
the  case  is  not  altered.  A  universal  man  would  still  be  a  man  who 
had  in  himself  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  the  totality  of  that  life 
or  of  those  forces.  There  is  no  conceivable  sense  in  which  Christ 
had  in  Himself  the  whole  of  humanity,  when  millions  of  other  men 
existed  around  Him.  This  whole  theory,  therefore,  which  is  set 
up  as  antagonistic  to  the  Church  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  rests  on 
an  unintelligible,  or  meaningless  proposition.  It  is  no  new  thing  in 
the  history  of  the  human  mind  that  even  great  men  should  deceive 
themselves  with  words,  and  take  mystic  phrases,  or  vague  imagin- 
ings for  definite  ideas. 

3.  There  is  a  moral  or  ethical  impossibility,  as  well  as  a  meta- 
physical one,  involved  in  this  theory.  The  doctrine  is,  that  in 
assuminor  human  nature  Christ  assumed  the  guilt  attaching  to  the 
sins  humanity  had  committed.  He  became  responsible  for  those 
sins ;  and  was  bound  to  bear  the  penalty  they  had  incurred.  Nev- 
ertheless human  nature  as  it  existed  in  his  person  was  guiltless  and 
absolutely  pure.  This,  to  our  apprehensions,  is  an  impossibility. 
Guilt  and  sin  can  be  predicated  only  of  a  person.  This  if  not  a 
self-evident,  is,  at  least,  a  universally  admitted  truth.  Only  a  person 
is  a  rational  agent.  It  is  only  to  persons  that  responsibility,  guilt, 
or  moral  character  can  attach.  Human  nature  apart  from  human 
persons  cannot  act,  and  therefore  cannot  contract  guilt,  or  be  re- 
sponsible. Christ  assumed  a  rational  soul  which  had  never  existed 
as  a  person,  and  coiild  not  be  responsible  on  the  ground  of  its  na- 
ture for  the  sins  of  other  men.  Unless  guilt  and  sin  be  essential 
attributes  or  properties  of  human  nature,  Christ  did  not  assume 
guilt  by  assuming  that  nature.  If  guilt  and  sin  cannot  be  predicated 
of  Christ's  person,  they  cannot  by  possibility  be  predicated  of  his 
human  nature.  The  whole  theory,  therefore,  which  denies  that 
Christ  as  a  divine  person  clothed  in  a  nature  like  our  own,  assumed 
the  guilt  of  our  sins  by  imputation  of  what  did  not  belong  to  Him, 
and  sustained  the  penalty  which  we  had  incurred,  and  makes  that 
denial  on  the  ground  that  the  innocent  cannot  bear  the  sins  of  the 
guilty ;  tliat  God  could  not  regard  Him  as  sin,  unless  He  was  in 


§  7.]  OBJECTIONS.  537 

Himself  sin,  is  founded  on  the  moral  impossibility  that  a  nature, 
as  distinguished  from  a  person,  can  sin  or  be  guilty. 

When  it  is  said  that  we  derive  a  sinful  nature  from  Adam,  and 
that  guilt  as  well  as  pollution  attaches  to  the  nature  of  fallen  men, 
the  doctrine  is,  that  we,  and  all  who  derive  that  nature  from  Adam, 
are  personally  sinful  and  guilty.  We  are  born,  as  the  Apostle 
says,  the  children  of  wrath.  It  is  not  an  impersonal  nature  which 
is  guilty,  for  this  would  be  a  contradiction,  but  persons  whose  im- 
manent, subjective  state  is  opposed  to  the  character  and  law  of 
God.  All  this,  however,  is  denied  concerning  Christ.  These 
theologians  admit  that,  as  a  person.  He  was  without  sin.  But  if 
without  sin.  He  was  without  guilt.  It  was  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures by  the  imputation  to  Him  of  sins  not  his  own,  that  He  bore 
our  guilt,  or  assumed  the  responsibility  of  satisfying  justice  on  our 
account.  It  is  only  by  admitting  that  by  being  born  of  a  woman, 
or  becoming  flesh,  Christ  placed  Himself  in  the  category  of  sinful 
men,  and  became  personally  a  sinner,  and  guilty  in  the  sight  of 
God,  as  all  other  men  are,  that  it  can  be  maintained  that  the  as- 
sumption of  our  nature  in  itself  involved  the  assumption  of  guilt, 
or  that  He  thereby  became  responsible  for  all  the  sins  which  men 
possessing  that  nature  had  committed. 

4.  It  is  another  fatal  objection  to  this  scheme  that  it  subverts  the 
whole  gospel  plan  of  salvation.  Instead  of  directing  the  soul  to 
Christ,  to  his  righteousness,  and  to  his  intercession  ;  that  is,  to 
what  is  objective  and  out  of  itself,  as  the  ground  of  its  hope  toward 
God,  it  turns  the  attention  of  the  sinner  in  upon  himself.  The  only 
righteousness  he  has  on  which  to  trust  is  within.  He  has  a  new 
nature,  and  because  of  that  nature  is  and  deserves  to  be,  recon- 
ciled unto  God  and  entitled  to  eternal  life.  It  places  Christ  just 
as  far  from  us  as  Adam  is.  As  Adam  is  the  source  of  a  nature 
for  which  we  are  condemned,  so  Christ  is  the  source  of  a  nature 
for  which  we  are  justified  and  saved.  The  system,  therefore, 
calls  upon  us  to  exchange  a  hope  founded  upon  what  Christ  is 
and  has  done  in  our  behalf,  a  hope  which  rests  upon  an  infinitely 
meritorious  righteousness  out  of  ourselves,  for  a  hope  founded  on 
the  glimmer  of  divine  life  which  we  find  within  ourselves.  We 
may  call  this  new  nature  by  what  high-sounding  names  we  please. 
We  may  call  it  theanthropic,  divine-human,  or  divine,  it  makes  no 
difference.  Whatever  it  is  called,  it  is  something  so  weak  and  so 
imperfect  tliat  it  cannot  satisfy  ourselves,  mvich  less  the  infinitely 
holy  and  just  God.  To  call  on  men  to  trust  for  their  acceptance 
before  God  on  the  ground  of  what  they  are  made  by  this  inward 


638        PART  in.  Ch.  VII.  —  SATISFACTION   OF   CHRIST. 

change,  is  to  call  upon  them  to  build  their  eternal  hopes  upon  a 
foundation  which  cannot  sustain  a  straw.  That  this  is  the  true 
view  of  the  plan  of  salvation  as  proposed  by  these  theologians, 
notwithstanding  the  lofty  terms  in  which  they  speak  of  Christ  as 
our  Saviour,  is  plain  from  the  parallel  which  they  constantly  refer 
to  between  our  relation  to  Christ  and  our  relation  to  Adam.  This 
is  an  analogy  which  the  Apostle  insists  upon,  and  which  as  pre- 
sented by  him  is  full  of  instruction  and  hope.  Adam  was  the  head 
and  representative  of  his  race.  We  stood  our  probation  in  him. 
His  sin  was  putatively  the  sin  of  his  posterity.  It  was  the  judicial 
ground  of  their  condemnation.  The  penalty  of  that  transgression 
was  death,  the  loss  of  the  life  of  God,  as  well  as  of  his  fellowship 
and  favour.  All  mankind,  therefore,  represented  by  Adam  in  the 
first  covenant  came  into  the  world  in  a  state  of  condemnation  and 
of  spiritual  death.  He  was  a  type  of  Christ,  because  Christ  is  the 
head  and  representative  of  his  people.  He  fulfilled  all  righteousness 
in  their  behalf  and  in  their  stead.  As  Adam's  disobedience  was 
the  ground  of  the  condemnation  of  all  who  were  in  him,  so  Christ's 
obedience  is  the  ground  of  the  justification  of  all  who  are  in  Him ; 
and  as  spiritual  death  was  the  penal,  and  therefore  certain  conse- 
quence of  our  condemnation  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  so  spiritual  and 
eternal  life  is  the  covenanted,  and  therefore  the  certain  and  insep- 
arable consequence  of  our  justification  for  the  righteousness  of 
Christ.  But  according  to  the  modern  speculative  (or  as  it  is  called 
by  Dorner,^  "  the  regenerated  ")  theology,  the  parallel  between 
Christ  and  Adam  is  very  different.  We  are  not  condemned  for 
Adam's  sin,  as  his  sin,  but  only  for  that  sin  as  it  was  ours,  commit- 
ted by  us  as  partakers  of  the  numerically  same  nature  that  sinned 
in  him,  and  for  the  consequent  corruption  of  our  nature.  The 
whole  ground  of  our  condemnation  is  subjective  or  inward.  We 
are  condemned  for  what  we  are.  In  like  manner  we  are  justified 
for  what  we  become  through  Christ.  He  assumed  numerically  the 
same  nature  that  had  sinned.  He  sanctified  it,  elevated  it,  and 
raised  it  to  the  power  of  a  divine  life  by  its  union  with  his  divine 
person,  and  He  communicates  this  new,  theanthropic  nature  to  his 
people,  and  on  the  ground  of  what  they  thus  become  they  are 
reconciled  and  saved.  It  is  a  favourite  and  frequently  occurring 
statement  with  these  writers  that  Christ  redeems  us,  not  by  what 
He  does,  but  by  what  He  is.  His  assumption  of  our  nature  was 
its  redemption.     Extreme  spiritualism  always  ends  in  materialism. 

1  See  his  Geschichte  der  protestantischen  Theologie,  p.  769,  and  onward.     He  dates  this  re- 
generation from  Schelling,  Hegel,  and  Schleiermacher,  especially,  of  course,  the  last. 


§  7.]  OBJECTIONS.  539 

This  whole  theory  has  a  materiahstic  aspect.  Humanity  as  derived 
from  Adam  is  conceived  of  as  a  polluted  stream,  into  which  a  heal- 
ing purifying  element  was  introduced  by  Christ.  From  Him  on- 
ward, it  flows  as  a  life-giving  stream.  What  then  becomes  of  those 
who  lived  before  Christ  ?  This  is  a  question  which  these  theolo- 
gians are  slow  to  answer.  They  agree,  however,  in  saying  that 
the  condition  of  the  patriarchs  was  deplorable  ;  that  their  relation 
to  Christ  was  essentially  different  from  ours.  There  was  no  the- 
anthropic  life  for  them.  That  began  with  the  incarnation,  and  the 
stream  cannot  flow  backwards. 

No  one  can  read  the  theological  works  of  the  speculative  school, 
without  being  satisfied  that  their. design  is  not  to  set  forth  what  the 
Scriptures  teach.  To  this  little  or  no  attention  is  paid.  Their 
object  is  to  give  a  scientific  interpretation  of  certain  facts  of  Scrip- 
ture (such  as  sin  and  redemption),  in  accordance  with  the  princi- 
ples of  the  current  philosophy.  These  writers  are  as  much  out  of 
the  reach,  and  out  of  contact  with  the  sympathies  and  religious  life 
of  the  people,  as  men  in  a  balloon  are  out  of  relation  to  those  they 
leave  behind.  To  the  aeronauts  indeed  those  on  the  earth  appear 
very  diminutive  and  grovelling  ;  but  they  are  none  the  less  in  their 
proper  sphere  and  upon  solid  ground.  All  that  the  excursionists 
can  hope  for  is  a  safe  return  to  terra  jirma.  And  that  is  seldom 
accomplished  without  risk  or  loss. 

Popular  Objections. 

The  more  popular  objections  to  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  satis- 
faction have  already  been  considered  in  the  progress  of  the  discus- 
sion. A  certain  amount  of  repetition  may  be  pardoned  for  the  sake 
of  a  brief  and  distinct  statement  of  the  several  points.  These 
objections  were  all  urged  by  Socinus  and  his  associates  at  the  time 
of  the  Reformation.     They  are  principally  the  following  :  — 

There  is  no  Vindicatory  Justice  in  God. 

1.  There  is  no  such  attribute  in  God  as  vindicatory  justice,  and 
therefore  there  can  be  no  satisfaction  to  justice  required  or  rendered. 
This  would  be  a  fatal  objection  if  the  assumption  which  it  involves 
were  correct.  But  if  it  is  intuitively  true,  that  sin  ought  to  be 
punished,  then  it  is  no  less  true  that  God  will,  and  from  the  consti- 
tution of  his  nature  must  do,  what  ought  to  be  done.  All  men, 
in  despite  of  the  sophistry  of  the  understanding,  and  in  despite  of 
their  moral  degradation,  know  that  it  is  the  righteous  judgment  of 
God,  that  those  who  sin  are  worthy  of  death.     They,  therefore, 


{ 


540       PART  III.     Ch.   Vn.  —  satisfaction   of   CHRIST. 

know  that  without  a  satisfaction  to  justice,  sin  cannot  be  pardoned. 
If  there  be  no  sacrifice  for  sin,  there  is  only  a  fearful  looking  for  of 
judgment.  This  conviction  lies  undisturbed  at  the  bottom  of  every 
human  breast,  and  never  fails,  sooner  or  later,  to  reveal  itself  with 
irrepressible  force  on  the  reason  and  the  conscience. 

There  can  he  no  Antagonism  in  G-od. 

2.  To  the  same  effect  it  is  objected  that  there  can  be  no  antag- 
onism in  God.  There  cannot  be  one  impulse  to  punish  and  another 
impulse  not  to  punish.  All  God's  acts  or  manifestations  of  Him- 
self toward  his  creatures,  must  be  referred  to  one  principle,  and 
that  principle  is  love.  And,  therefore,  his  plan  of  saving  sinners 
can  only  be  regarded  as  an  exhibition  of  love,  not  of  justice  in  any 
form.  All  that  He  can,  as  a  God  of  love,  require,  is  the  return  of 
his  creatures  to  Himself,  which  is  a  return  to  holiness  and  happi- 
ness. It  is  true  God  is  love.  But  it  is  no  less  true  that  love  in 
God  is  not  a  weakness,  impelling  Him  to  do  what  ought  not  to  be 
done.  If  sin  ought  to  be  punished,  as  conscience  and  the  word  of 
God  declare,  then  there  is  nothing  in  God  which  impels  Him  to 
leave  it  unpunished.  His  whole  nature  is  indeed  harmonious,  but 
it  has  the  harmony  of  moral  excellence,  leading  with  absolute  cer- 
tainty to  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  doing  right ;  punishing  or  par- 
doning, just  as  moral  excellence  demands.  The  love  of  God  has 
not  prevented  the  final  perdition  of  apostate  angels;  and  it  could 
not  require  the  restoration  of  fallen  men  without  an  adequate 
atonement.  The  infinite,  discriminating  love  of  God  to  our  race, 
is  manifested  in  his  givinor  his  own  Son  to  bear  our  sins  and  to  re- 
deem  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law  by  sustaining  the  penalty  in  his 
own  person.  "  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that 
He  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  (iAao-/ios,  pro- 
pitiatio,  expiatio.  No  man  can  get  the  saving  import  out  of  that 
word)  for  our  sins."     (1  John  iv.  10.) 

The  Transfer  of  Gruilt  or  Righteousness  Impossible. 

3.  It  is  objected  that  the  transfer  of  guilt  and  righteousness 
involved  in  the  Church  doctrine  of  satisfaction  is  impossible. 
The  transfer  of  guilt  or  righteousness,  as  states  of  consciousness  or 
forms  of  moral  character,  is  indeed  impossible.  But  the  transfer 
of  guilt  as  responsibility  to  justice,  and  of  righteousness  as  that 
which  satisfies  justice,  is  no  more  impossible  than  that  one  man 
should  pay  the  debt  of  another.  All  that  the  Bible  teaches  on  this 
subject  is  that  Christ  paid  as  a  substitute,  our  debt  to  the  justice 


I 


§  7.]  OBJECTIONS.  541 

of  God.  The  handwriting  (xftpoypa</>ov,  the  bond,  Schuldbrief) 
Christ  has  cancelled,  by  nailing  it  to  his  cross.  His  complete  sat- 
isfaction to  the  law,  freed  us  as  completely  as  the  debtor  is  freed 
when  his  bond  is  legally  cancelled. 

Expiation  a  Heathenish  Idea. 

4.  The  idea  of  expiation,  the  innocent  suffering  for  the  guilty, 
and  God  being  thereby  propitiated,  is  declared  to  be  heathenish 
and  revolting.  No  man  has  the  right  to  make  his  taste  or  feelings 
the  test  of  truth.  That  a  doctrine  is  disagreeable,  is  no  sufficient 
evidence  of  its  untruth.  There  are  a  great  many  terribly  un- 
pleasant truths,  to  which  we  sinners  have  to  submit.  Besides,  the 
idea  of  expiation  is  not  revolting  to  the  vast  majority  of  minds,  as 
is  proved  by  its  being  incorporated  in  all  religions  of  men,  whether 
pagan,  Jewish,  or  Christian.  So  far  from  being  revolting,  it  is 
cherished  and  delighted  in  as  the  only  hope  of  the  guilty.  So 
far  from  the  innocent  suffering  for  the  guilty  being  a  revolting 
spectacle,  it  is  one  of  the  sublimest  exhibitions  of  self-sacrificing 
love.  All  heaven  stands  uncovered  before  the  cross  on  which  the 
Son  of  God,  holy  and  harmless,  bore  the  sins  of  men.  And  God 
forbid  that  redeemed  sinners  should  regard  the  cross  as  an  offence. 
God  is  not  won  to  love  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  but  that  death 
renders  it  consistent  with  moral  excellence  that  his  infinite  love  for 
sinful  men  should  have  unrestricted  sway. 

Satisfaction  to  Justice  unnecessary. 

5.  It  is  objected  that  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  to  justice  by 
means  of  vicarious  punishment  is  unnecessary.  All  that  is  needed 
for  the  restoration  of  harmony  in  the  universe  can  be  effected  by 
the  power  of  love.  The  two  great  ends  to  be  accomplished  are  a 
due  impression  on  rational  minds  of  the  evil  of  sin,  and  the  refor- 
mation of  sinners.  Both  these  objects,  it  is  contended,  are  secured 
without  expiation  or  any  penal  suffering.  According  to  some,  the 
work  of  Christ  operates  assthetically  to  accomplish  the  ends  de- 
sired ;  according  to  others,  it  operates  morally  through  the  exhibi- 
tion of  love  or  by  example,  or  by  the  confirmation  of  truth  ;  and  ac- 
cording to  others,  the  operation  is  supernatural  or  mystical.  But 
in  any  case  his  work  was  no  satisfaction  to  justice  or  expiation  for 
sin.     It  is  enough  to  say  in  answer  to  all  this,  — 

1.  That  such  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  The  Scriptures 
teach  that  something  more  was  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  men 
than  moral  influences  and  impressions,  or  the  revelation  and  con- 


542      PART  III.     Cii.   VII.  —  SATISFACTION  OF  CHRIST. 

firmation  of  truth,  something  very  different  from  mystical  influ- 
ence on  the  nature  of  man.  What  was  necessary  was  precisely 
what  was  done.  The  Son  of  God  assumed  our  nature,  took  the 
place  of  sinners,  hore  the  curse  of  the  law  in  their  stead,  and  there- 
by rendered  it  possible  that  God  should  be  just  and  yet  the  justi- 
fier  of  the  ungodly.  If  such  be  the  Scripture  doctrine,  all  these 
schemes  of  redemption  may  be  dismissed  without  consideration. 

2.  These  schemes  are  not  only  unscriptural,  but  they  are  inoper- 
ative. They  do  not  meet  the  necessities  of  tlie  case,  as  those 
necessities  reveal  themselves  in  the  consciousness  of  men.  They 
make  no  provision  for  the  removal  of  guilt.  But  the  sense  of  guilt 
is  universal  and  ineradicable.  It  is  not  irrational.  It  is  not  founded 
on  ignorance  or  misconception  of  our  relation  to  God.  The  more 
the  soul  is  enlightened,  the  more  deep  and  painful  is  its  sense  of 
guilt.  There  are  some  philosophers  who  would  persuade  us  that 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  sin  ;  that  the  sense  of  moral  pollution  of 
which  men  complain,  and  under  which  the  holiest  men  groan  as  un- 
der a  body  of  death,  is  all  a  delusion,  a  state  of  mind  produced  by 
erroneous  views  of  God  and  of  his  relation  to  his  creatures.  There 
are  others,  theologians  as  well  as  philosophers,  who  while  admit- 
ting the  reality  of  moral  evil,  and  recognizing  the  validity  of  the 
testimony  of  consciousness  as  to  our  moral  pollution,  endeavour  to 
persuade  us  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  guilt.  Responsibility  to 
justice,  the  desert  of  punishment,  the  moral  necessity  for  the  pun- 
ishment of  sin,  they  deny.  The  one  class  is  just  as  obviousl}'- 
wrong  as  the  other.  Consciousness  testifies  just  as  clearly  and 
just  as  universally  to  the  guilt,  as  to  the  pollution.  It  craves  as 
importunately  deliverance  from  the  one  as  from  the  other.  A  plan 
of  salvation,  therefore,  which  makes  no  provision  for  the  removal 
of  guilt,  or  satisfaction  of  justice,  which  admits  no  such  thing  as 
the  vicarious  punishment  of  sin,  is  as  little  suited  to  our  necessities 
as  though  it  made  no  provision  for  the  reformation  and  sanctifica- 
tion  of  men. 

3.  A  third  remark  on  these  humanly  devised  schemes  of  re- 
demption is,  that  while  they  leave  out  the  essential  idea  of  expia- 
tion, or  satisfaction  to  justice  by  vicarious  punishment,  without 
which  salvation  is  impossible,  and  reconciliation  with  a  just  God 
inconceivable,  they  contain  no  element  of  influence  or  power  which 
does  not  belong  in  a  higher  degree  to  the  Scriptural  and  Church 
doctrine.  Whatever  there  is  of  power  in  a  perfectly  sinless  life, 
of  a  life  of  self-sacrifice  and  devotion  to  the  service  of  God  and  the 
good  of  man,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Church  doctrine.     Whatever 


§  7.]  OBJECTIONS.  543 

there  is  of  power  in  the  prolonged  exhibition  of  a  love  which  passes 
knowledge,  is  to  be  found  there.  Whatever  there  is  of  power  in 
the  truths  which  Christ  taught,  and  which  He  sealed  with  his 
blood,  truths  either  before  entirely  unknovvn,  or  only  imperfectly 
apprehended,  belongs  of  course  to  the  doctrine  which  the  Church 
universal  has  ever  held.  And  whatever  there  is  of  reality  in  the 
doctrine  of  our  mystical  union,  and  of  our  participation  of  the  na- 
ture of  Christ  through  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  belongs 
to  the  Scriptural  doctrine,  without  the  blurring  and  enfeebling 
effects  of  modern  speculation.  While,  therefore,  we  should  lose 
everything  in  renouncing  the  doctrine  of  expiation  through  the 
sacrificial  death  of  Christ,  we  should  gain  nothing,  by  adopting 
these  modern  theories. 

"  If  a  man,"  says  Delitzsch,  "  keeps  in  view  our  desert  of  pun- 
ishment, and  allows  the  three  saving  doctrines  of  Scripture  to  stand 
in  their  integrity,  namely,  (1.)  That  God  made  Him  who  knew  no 
sin  to  be  sin  for  us,  i.  <?.,  imputed  our  sins  to  Him.  (2.)  That 
Christ,  although  free  from  guilt,  laden  with  our  guilt,  was  made  a 
curse  for  us,  i.  e.,  suffered  the  wrath  of  God  due  to  us  ;  or,  as  the 
Scripture  also  says,  that  God  executed  on  his  Son  judgment  against 
sin,  He  having  taken  upon  Him  flesh  and  blood  and  offered  Him- 
self as  a  sacrifice  for  us  for  the  expiation  of  sin.  (3.)  That  in  like 
manner  his  righteousness  is  imputed  to  believers,  so  that  we  may 
stand  before  God,  as  He  had  submitted  to  the  imputation  of  our 
sins  in  order  to  their  expiation  ;  if  these  premises  remain  unoblit- 
erated,  then  it  is  as  clear  as  the  sun  that  Christ  suffered  and  died 
as  our  substitute,  in  order  that  we  need  not  suffer  what  we  de- 
served, and  in  order  that  we  instead  of  dying  should  be  partakers 
of  the  life  secured  by  his  vicarious  death."  ^ 

1  Commentar  zum  Briefe  an  die  Hebrder,  p.  728.  "  Behiilt  man  die  Verdammnisswiirdig- 
keit  unserer  Schuld  recht  im  Auge  und  Ifisst  man  ohne  Deuteln  die  drei  grossen  von  der 
Schrift  bezeugten  Heilswahrheiten  stehen:  1.  dass  Gott  den  der  von  keiner  Siinde  wiisste 
fur  uns  zur  Siinde  geniacht  d.  i.  ihm  unsere  Siinden  imputirt  hat;  2.  dass  Cliristus  der 
Schuldlose,  aber  mit  unserer  Schuld  Reladene  tlir  uns  ein  Fliich  geworden  d.  i.  den  Blitz 
des  Zorns,  der  uns  treffen  sollte,  ftir  uns  eriitten,  oder,  w;e  die  Schrift  auch  sagt,  dass  Gott 
an  seinem  Sohne,  der  unser  Fleisch  und  Blut  angenommen  und  sich  uns  zum  Siindopfer,  zur 
Siindensiihiie  begeben,  das  Gericht  iiber  die  Siinde  vollzogen;  3.  dass  uns  nun  im  Glauben 
seine  Gerechtigkeit  ebenso  zuijerechnet  wird,  um  vor  Gott  bestehen  zu  konnen,  wie  er  sich 
hat  unsere  Siinden  zurechiien  lassen,  um  sie  zu  biis«en — :  so  ist  es  auch,  so  lauge  diese 
Vordersatze  ungeschmjiiert  bieiben,  sonnenklar,  das  er  stellverti-ele.nd  fur  uns  gelitten  und 
gestorben,  daniit  wir  nicht  ieiden  miissten,  was  wir  verwirkt,  und  damit  wir  statt  zu  sterben 
in  seinem  durch  stellvertretenden  Tod  hindurch  gewonnen  Leben  das  Leben  batten." 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

FOR  WHOM  DID   CHRIST  DIE? 
§  1.  State  of  the  Question. 

This  is  a  question  between  Augustinians  and  Anti-Augustinians. 
The  former  believing  that  God  from  all  eternity  having  elected 
some  to  everlasting  life,  had  a  special  reference  to  their  salvation 
in  the  mission  and  work  of  his  Son.  The  latter,  denying  that  there 
has  been  any  such  election  of  a  part  of  the  human  family  to  sal- 
vation, maintain  that  the  mission  and  work  of  Christ  had  an  equal 
reference  to  all  mankind. 

The  question,  therefore,  does  not,  in  the  first  place,  concern  the 
nature  of  Christ's  work.  It  is  true,  if  it  be  denied  that  his  work 
was  a  satisfaction  for  sin,  and  affirmed  that  it  was  merely  didactic ; 
that  his  life,  sufferings,  and  death  were  designed  to  reveal  and 
confirm  truth ;  then  it  would  follow  of  course  that  it  had  no  refer- 
ence to  one  class  of  men  more  than  to  another,  or  to  men  more 
than  to  angels.  Truth  is  designed  for  the  illumination  of  all  the 
minds  to  which  it  is  presented.  But  admitting  the  work  of  Christ 
to  have  been  a  true  satisfaction  for  sin,  its  design  may  still  be  an 
open  question.  Accordingly,  Lutherans  and  Reformed,  although 
they  agree  entirely  as  to  the  nature  of  the  atonement,  diiFer  as  to 
its  design.  The  former  maintain  that  it  had  an  equal  reference  to 
all  mankind,  the  latter  that  it  had  special  reference  to  the  elect. 

In  the  second  place,  the  question  does  not  concern  the  value  of 
Christ's  satisfaction.  That  Augustinians  admit  to  be  infinite.  Its 
value  depends  on  the  dignity  of  the  sacrifice ;  and  as  no  limit  can 
be  placed  to  the  dignity  of  the  Eternal  Son  of  God  who  offered  Him- 
self for  our  sins,  so  no  limit  can  be  assigned  to  the  meritorious  value 
of  his  work.  It  is  a  gross  misrepresentation  of  the  Augustinian 
doctrine  to  say  that  it  teaches  that  Christ  suffered  so  much  for  so 
many ;  that  He  would  have  suffered  more  had  more  been  included 
in  the  purpose  of  salvation.  This  is  not  the  doctrine  of  any  Church 
on  earth,  and  never  has  been.  What  was  sufficient  for  one  was 
sufficient  for  all.  Nothino;  less  than  the  light  and  heat  of  the  sun 
is  sufficient  for  any  one  plant  or  animal.     But  what  is  absolutely 


§  1.]  STATE   OF   THE   QUESTION.  545 

necessary  for  each  is  abundantly  sufficient  for  the  infinite  number 
and  variety  of  plants  and  animals  which  fill  the  earth.  All  that 
Christ  did  and  suffered  would  have  been  necessary  had  only  one 
human  soul  been  the  object  of  redemption ;  and  nothing  different 
and  nothing  more  would  have  been  required  had  every  child  of 
Adam  been  saved  through  his  blood. 

In  the  third  place,  the  question  does  not  concern  the  suitableness 
of  the  atonement.  What  was  suitable  for  one  was  suitable  for  all. 
The  righteousness  of  Christ,  the  merit  of  his  obedience  and  death, 
is  needed  for  justification  by  each  individual  of  our  race,  and  there- 
fore is  needed  by  all.  It  is  no  more  appropriate  to  one  man  than 
to  another.  Christ  fulfilled  the  conditions  of  the  covenant  under 
which  all  men  were  placed.  He  rendered  the  obedience  required 
of  all,  and  suffered  the  penalty  which  all  had  incurred ;  and  there- 
fore his  work  is  equally  suited  to  all. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  question  does  not  concern  the  actual 
application  of  the  redemption  purchased  by  Christ.  The  parties  to 
this  controversy  are  agreed  that  some  only,  and  not  all  of  mankind 
are  to  be  actually  saved. 

The  whole  question,  therefore,  concerns  simply  the  purpose  of 
God  in  the  mission  of  his  Son.  What  was  the  design  of  Christ's 
coming  into  the  world,  and  doing  and  suffering  all  He  actually  did 
and  suffered?  Was  it  merely  to  make  the  salvation  of  all  men 
possible  ;  to  remove  the  obstacles  which  stood  in  the  way  of  the 
offer  of  pardon  and  acceptance  to  sinners  ?  or,  Was  it  specially  to 
render  certain  the  salvation  of  his  own  people,  i.  e.,  of  those  given 
to  Him  by  the  Father  ?  The  latter  question  is  affirmed  by  Augus- 
tinians,  and  denied  by  their  opponents.  It  is  obvious  that  if  there 
be  no  election  of  some  to  everlasting  life,  the  atonement  can  have 
no  special  reference  to  the  elect.  It  must  have  equal  reference  to 
all  mankind.  But  it  does  not  follow  from  the  assertion  of  its  having 
a  special  reference  to  the  elect  that  it  had  no  reference  to  the  non- 
elect.  Augustinians  readily  admit  that  the  death  of  Christ  had  a 
relation  to  man,  to  the  whole  human  family,  which  it  had  not  to 
the  fallen  angels.  It  is  the  ground  on  which  salvation  is  offered  to 
every  creature  under  heaven  who  hears  the  gospel ;  but  it  gives  no 
authority  for  a  like  offer  to  apostate  angels.  It  moreover  secures 
to  the  whole  race  at  large,  and  to  all  classes  of  men,  innumerable 
blessings,  both  providential  and  religious.  It  was,  of  course,  de- 
signed to  produce  these  effects ;  and,  therefore.  He  died  to  secure 
them.  In  view  of  the  effects  which  the  death  of  Christ  produces 
on  the  relation  of  all  mankind  to  God,  it  has  in  all  ages  been  cus- 

VOL.  II.  35 


546     PART   III.     Cu.   VIU.  — FOR  WHOM  DID   CHRIST   DIE? 

toinary  with  Augustinians  to  say  that  Christ  died  "  sufficienter  pro 
omnibus,  efficaciter  tantutn  pro  electls ;  "  sufficiently  for  all,  effica- 
ciously only  for  the  elect.  There  is  a  sense,  therefore,  in  which 
He  died  for  all,  and  there  is  a  sense  in  which  He  died  for  the  elect 
alone.  The  simple  question  is,  Had  the  death  of  Christ  a  reference 
to  the  elect  which  it  had  not  to  other  men  ?  Did  He  come  into 
the  world  to  secure  the  salvation  of  those  given  to  Him  by  the 
Father,  so  that  the  other  effects  of  his  work  are  merely  incidental 
to  what  was  done  for  the  attainment  of  that  object  ? 

§  2.  Proof  of  the  Augustinian  Doctrine. 

That  these  questions  must  be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  is 
evident,  — 

1.  From  the  nature  of  the  covenant  of  redemption.  It  is  admit- 
ted that  there  was  a  covenant  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  in 
relation  to  the  salvation  of  men.  It  is  admitted  that  Christ  came 
into  the  world  in  execution  of  that  covenant.  The  nature  of  the 
covenant,  therefore,  determines  the  object  of  his  death.  According 
to  one  view,  man  having  by  his  fall  lost  the  ability  of  fulfilling  the 
conditions  of  the  covenant  of  life,  God,  for  Christ's  sake,  enters  into 
a  new  covenant,  offering  men  salvation  upon  other  and  easier 
terms  ;  namely,  as  some  say,  faith  and  repentance,  and  others 
evangelical  obedience.  If  such  be  the  nature  of  tlie  plan  of  salva- 
tion, then  it  is  obvious  that  the  work  of  Christ  has  equal  reference 
to  all  mankind.  According  to  another  view,  the  work  of  Christ 
was  designed  to  secure  the  pardon  of  original  sin  and  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  for  all  men,  Jews  or  Gentiles,  and  those  are  saved 
who  duly  improve  the  grace  they  severally  receive.  The  former 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  ancient  Semi-Pelagians  and  modern  Remon- 
strants ;  the  latter  of  the  Wesleyan  Arminians.  The  Lutherans 
hold  that  God  sent  his  Son  to  make  a  full  and  real  legal  satisfaction 
for  the  sins  of  all  mankind  ;  and  that  on  the  ground  of  this  perfect 
satisfaction  the  offer  of  salvation  is  made  to  all  who  hear  the  gos- 
pel ;  that  grace  is  given  (in  the  word  and  sacraments)  which,  if 
unresisted,  is  sufficient  to  secure  their  salvation.  The  French 
theologians  at  Saumur,  in  the  17th  century,  taught  also  that  Christ 
came  into  the  world  to  do  whatever  was  necessary  for  the  salvation 
of  men.  But  God,  foreseeing  that,  if  left  to  themselves,  men  would 
universally  reject  the  offers  of  mercy,  elected  some  to  be  the  sub- 
jects of  his  saving  grace  by  which  they  are  brought  to  faith  and 
repentance.  According  to  this  view  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  elec- 
tion is  subordinate  to  redemption.     God  first  redeems  all  and  then 


I 


§2.]  PROOF   OF   THE   AUGUSTINIAN  DOCTRINE.  547 

elects  some.  This  is  the  view  extensively  adopted  in  this  country. 
According  to  Augustinians,  men,  by  their  fall,  having  sunk  into 
a  state  of  sin  and  misery,  might  justly  have  been  left,  as  were 
the  fallen  angels,  to  perish  in  their  sins.  But  God,  in  his  infinite 
mercy,  having  determined  to  save  a  multitude  whom  no  man  could 
number,  gave  them  to  his  Son  as  his  inheritance,  provided  He 
would  assume  their  nature  and  fulfil  all  righteousness  in  their  stead. 
In  the  accomplishment  of  this  plan  Ciirist  did  come  into  the  world, 
and  did  obey  and  suffer  in  the  place  of  those  thus  given  to  Him,  and 
for  their  salvation.  This  was  the  definite  object  of  his  mission, 
and  therefore  his  death  had  a  reference  to  them  which  it  could  not 
possibly  have  to  those  whom  God  determined  to  leave  to  the  just 
recompense  of  their  sins.  Now  this  plan  only  supposes  that  God. 
determined  from  eternity  to  do  what  in  time  He  has  actually 
accomplished.  If  it  were  just  that  all  men  should  pei'ish  on  account 
of  their  sin  it  was  just  to  leave  a  portion  of  the  race  thus  to  perish, 
while  the  salvation  of  the  other  portion  is  a  matter  of  unmerited 
favour.  It  can  hardly  be  denied  that  God  did  thus  enter  into 
covenant  with  his  Son.  That  is,  that  He  did  promise  Him  the 
salvation  of  his  people  as  the  reward  of  his  incarnation  and  suffer- 
ings ;  that  Christ  did  come  into  the  world  and  suffer  and  die  on 
that  condition,  and,  having  performed  the  condition,  is  entitled  to 
the  promised  reward.  These  are, facts  so  clearly  and  so  repeatedly 
stated  in  the  Scriptures  as  not  to  admit  of  their  being  called  into 
question.  But  if  such  is  the  plan  of  God  respecting  the  salvation 
of  men  then  it  of  necessity  follows  that  election  precedes  redemp- 
tion ;  that  God  had  determined  whom  He  would  save  before  He 
sent  his  Son  to  save  them.  Therefore  our  Lord  said  that  those 
given  to  Him  by  his  Father  should  certainly  come  to  Him,  and 
that  He  would  raise  them  up  at  the  last  day.  These  Scriptural 
facts  cannot  be  admitted  without  its  being  also  admitted  that  the 
death  of  Christ  had  a  reference  to  his  people,  whose  salvation  it 
rendered  certain,  which  it  had  not  to  others  whom,  for  infinitely 
wise  reasons,  God  determined  to  leave  to  themselves.  It  follows, 
therefore,  from  the  nature  of  the  covenant  of  redemption,  as  pre- 
sented in  the  Bible,  that  Christ  did  not  die  equally  for  all  mankind, 
but  that  He  gave  Himself  for  his  people  and  for  their  redemption. 

Argument  from  the  Doctrine  of  Election. 

2.  This  follows  also  almost  necessarily  from  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion. Indeed  it  never  was  denied  that  Christ  died  specially  for  the 
elect  until  the  doctrine  of  election  itself  was  rejected.     Augustine, 


548     PART  III.     Ch.   Vni.  — for  whom   did   CHRIST   DIE? 

the  follower  and  expounder  of  St.  Paul,  taught  that  God  out  of  his 
•mere  good  pleasure  had  elected  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  held 
that  Christ  came  into  the  world  to  suffer  and  die  for  their  salvation. 
He  purchased  them  with  his  own  precious  blood.  The  Semi- 
Pelagians,  in  denying  the  doctrine  of  election,  of  course  denied 
that  Christ's  death  had  more  reference  to  one  class  of  men  than  to 
another.  Tiie  Latin  Church,  so  long  as  it  held  to  the  Augustinian 
doctrine  of  election,  held  also  to  Augustine's  doctrine  concerning 
the  design  and  objects  of  Christ's  death.  All  through  the  Middle 
Aires  this  was  one  of  the  distinctive  doctrines  of  those  wlio  resisted 
the  progress  of  the  Semi-Pelagian  party  in  the  Western  Chui'ch. 
At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  the  Lutherans,  so  long  as  they 
held  to  the  one  doctrine  held  also  to  the  otiier.  The  Reformed, 
in  holding  fast  the  doctrine  of  election,  remained  faithful  to  their 
denial  of  the  doctrine  that  the  work  of  Christ  had  equal  reference 
to  all  mankind.  It  was  not  until  the  Remonstrants  in  Holland, 
under  the  teaching  of  Arminius,  rejected  the  Church  doctrine  of 
original  sin,  of  the  inability  of  fallen  man  to  anything  spiritually 
good,  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  election,  and  the  perseverance  of 
the  saints,  that  the  doctrine  that  the  atonement  had  a  special  refer- 
ence to  the  people  of  God  was  rejected.  It  is,  therefore,  a  matter 
of  history  that  the  doctrine  of  election  and  the  Augustinian  doctrine 
as  to  the  design  of  the  work  of  Christ  have  been  inseparably  united. 
As  this  connection  is  historical  so  also  is  it  logical.  The  one  doc- 
trine necessarily  involves  the  other.  If  God  from  eternity  deter- 
mined to  save  one  portion  of  the  human  race  and  not  another,  it 
seems  to  be  a  contradiction  to  say  that  tiie  plan  of  salvation  had 
equal  reference  to  both  portions ;  that  the  Fatiier  sent  his  Son  to 
die  for  those  whom  He  had  predetermined  not  to  save,  as  truly  as, 
and  in  the  same  sense  that  He  gave  Him  up  for  those  whom  He 
had  chosen  to  make  the  heirs  of  salvation. 

Express  Declarations  of  Scripture, 

3.  We  accordingly  find  numerous  passages  in  which  the  design 
of  Christ's  death  is  declared  to  be,  to  save  his  people  from  their 
sins.  He  did  not  come  merely  to  render  their  salvation  possible, 
but  actually  to  deliver  them  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  and  from 
the  power  of  sin.  This  is  included  in  all  the  Scriptural  representa- 
tions of  the  nature  and  design  of  his  work.  No  man  pays  a  ransom 
without  the  certainty  of  the  deliverance  of  those  for  whom  it  is 
paid.  It  is  not  a  ransom  unless  it  actually  redeems.  And  an 
offering  is  no  sacrifice  unless  it  actually  expiates  and  propitiates. 


§  2.J  PROOF   OF   THE   AUGUSTINIAN   DOCTRINE.  549 

The  effect  of  a  ransom  and  sacrifice  may  indeed  be  conditional,  but 
the  occurrence  of  the  condition  will  be  rendered  certain  before  the 
costly  sacrifice  is  offered. 

There  are  also  very  numerous  passages  in  which  it  is  expressly 
declared  that  Christ  gave  Himself  for  his  Ciiurch  (Ephesians  v. 
25)  ;  that  He  laid  down  his  life  for  his  sheep  (John  x.  15)  ;  that  He 
laid  down  his  life  for  his  friends  (John  xv.  13)  ;  that  He  died  that  He 
might  gather  together  in  one  the  cliildren  of  God  that  are  scattei*ed 
abroad  (John  xi.  52);  that  it  was  the  Church  which  He  purchased 
with  his  blood  (Acts  xx.  28).  When  mankind  are  divided  into  two 
classes,  the  Church  and  the  world,  the  friends  and  the  enemies  of 
God,  the  sheep  and  the  goats,  whatever  is  affirmed  distinctively  of 
the  one  class  is  impliedly  denied  of  the  other.  When  it  is  said 
that  Christ  loved  his  Church  and  gave  Himself  for  it,  that  He  laid 
down  his  life  for  his  sheep,  it  is  clear  that  something  is  said  of  the 
Church  and  of  the  sheep,  which  is  not  true  of  those  who  belong  to 
neither.  When  it  is  said  that  a  man  labours  and  sacrifices  health 
and  strength  for  his  children,  it  is  thereby  denied  that  the  motive 
which  controls  him  is  mere  philanthropy,  or  that  the  design  he  has 
in  view  is  the  good  of  society.  He  may  indeed  be  a  philanthropist, 
and  he  may  recognize  the  fact  that  the  well-being  of  his  children 
will  promote  the  welfare  of  society,  but  this  does  not  alter  the 
case.  It  still  remains  true  that  love  for  his  children  is  the  motive, 
and  their  good  his  object.  It  is  difficult,  in  the  light  of  Ephesians 
V.  25,  where  the  deatii  of  Christ  is  attributed  to  his  love  of  his 
Church,  and  is  said  to  have  been  designed  for  its  sanctification  and 
salvation,  to  believe  that  He  gave  Himself  as  much  for  reprobates 
as  for  those  whom  He  intended  to  save.  Every  assertion,  there- 
fore that  Christ  died  for  a  people,  is  a  denial  of  the  doctrine  that 
He  died  equally  for  all  men. 

Argument  from  the  Special  Love  of  Grod. 

4.  By  the  love  of  God  is  sometimes  meant  his  goodness,  of  which 
all  sensitive  creatures  are  the  objects  and  of  whose  benefits  they 
are  the  recipients.  Sometimes  it  means  his  special  regard  for  tiie 
children  of  men,  not  only  as  rational  creatures,  but  also  as  the  off- 
spring of  Him  who  is  the  Father  of  the  spirits  of  all  men.  Some- 
times it  means  that  peculiar,  mysterious,  sovereign,  immeasurable 
love  which  passes  knowledge,  of  which  his  own  people,  the  Church 
of  the  first-born  whose  names  are  written  in  heaven,  are  the  ob- 
jects. Of  this  love  it  is  taught,  (1.)  Tiiat  it  is  infinitely  great. 
(2.)   That  it  is  discriminating,  fixed  on  some  and  not  upon  others 


550     PART  III.     Ch.   Vni.  — for   whom  did   CHRIST  DIE? 

of  the  children  of  men.  It  is  compared  to  the  love  of  a  husband 
for  his  wife  ;  which  from  its  nature  is  exclusive.  (3.)  That  it  is 
perfectly  gratuitous  and  sovereign,  i.  e.,  not  founded  upon  the 
special  attractiveness  of  its  objects,  but  like  parental  affection,  on 
the  mere  fact  that  they  are  his  children.  (4.)  That  it  is  immuta- 
ble. (5.)  That  it  secures  all  saving  blessings,  and  even  all  good  ; 
so  that  even  afflictions  are  among  its  fruits  intended  for  the  greater 
good  of  the  sufferer.  Now  to  this  love,  not  to  general  goodness, 
not  to  mere  philanthropy,  but  to  this  peculiar  and  infinite  love,  the 
gift  of  Christ  is  uniformly  referred.  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we 
loved  God,  but  that  He  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  pro- 
pitiation for  our  sins.  (1  John  iv.  10.)  Hereby  perceive  we  the 
love  of  God  (or,  hereby  we  know  what  love  is),  because  He  (Christ) 
laid  down  his  life  for  us.  (1  John  iii.  16.)  God  commendeth  his 
love  toward  us,  in  that  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for 
us.  (Romans  v.  8.)  Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a 
man  lay  down  his  life  for  his  friends.  (John  xv.  13.)  Nothing 
shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus.  (Romans  viii.  35-39.)  He  that  spared  not  his  own  Son, 
but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all,  how  shall  he  not  with  him  also 
freely  give  us  all  things  ?  (Romans  viii.  32.)  The  whole  argument 
of  the  Apostle  in  Romans  v.  1-11,  and  especially  throughout  the 
eighth  chapter,  is  founded  upon  this  infinite  and  immutable  love  of 
God  to  his  people.  From  this  he  argues  their  absolute  security  for 
time  and  eternity.  Because  He  thus  loved  them  He  gave  his  Son 
for  them  ;  and,  having  done  this.  He  would  certainly  give  them 
everything  necessary  for  their  salvation.  No  enemy  should  ever 
prevail  against  them  ;  nothing  could  ever  separate  them  from  his 
love.  This  whole  argument  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the 
hypothesis  that  Christ  died  equally  fur  all  men.  His  death  is 
referred  to  the  peculiar  love  of  God  to  his  people,  and  was  the 
pledge  of  all  other  saving  gifts.  This  peculiar  love  of  God  is  not 
founded  upon  the  fact  that  its  objects  are  believers,  for  He  loved 
them  as  enemies,  as  ungodly,  and  gave  his  Son  to  secure  their 
being  brought  to  faith,  repentance,  and  complete  restoration  to  the 
divine  image.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  explained  away  into  mere 
general  benevolence  or  philanthropy.  It  is  a  love  which  secured 
the  communication  of  Himself  to  its  objects,  and  rendered  their 
salvation  certain  ;  and  consequently  could  not  be  bestowed  upon 
all  men,  indiscriminately.  Tiiis  representation  is  so  predominant 
in  the  Scriptures,  namely,  that  the  peculiar  love  of  God  to  his  peo- 
ple, to  his  Church,  to  the  elect,  is  the  source  of  the  gift  of  Christ, 


§  2.]  PROOF   OF  THE  AUGUSTINIAN  DOCTRINE.       '      551 

of  the  mission  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  of  all  other  saving  blessings, 
that  it  cannot  be  ignored  in  any  view  of  the  plan  and  purpose  of 
salvation.  With  this  representation  every  other  statement  of  the 
Scriptures  must  be  consistent ;  and  therefore  the  theory  which 
denies  this  great  and  precious  truth,  and  which  assumes  that  the 
love  which  secured  the  gift  of  God's  eternal  Son,  was  mere  benevo- 
lence which  had  all  men  for  its  object,  many  of  whom  are  allowed 
to  perish,  must  be  unscriptural. 

Argument  from  the  Believer^  s  Union  with  Christ. 

5.  Another  argument  is  derived  from  the  nature  of  the  union 
between  Christ  and  his  people.  The  Bible  teaches,  (1.)  That  a 
certain  portion  of  the  human  race  were  given  to  Christ.  (2.)  That 
they  were  given  to  Him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world. 
(3.)  That  all  thus  given  to  Him  will  certainly  come  to  Him  and 
be  saved.  (4.)  That  this  union,  so  far  as  it  was  from  eternity,  is 
not  a  union  of  nature,  nor  by  faith,  nor  by  the  indwelling  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  It  was  a  federal  union.  (5.)  That  Christ,  therefore, 
was  a  federal  head  and  representative.  As  such  He  came  into  the 
world,  and  all  He  did  and  suffered  was  as  a  representative,  as  a 
substitute,  one  acting  in  the  place  and  for  the  benefit  of  others. 
But  He  was  the  representative  of  those  given  to  Him,  i.  g.,  of  those 
who  were  in  Him.  For  it  was  this  gift  and  the  union  consequent 
upon  it,  that  gave  Him  his  representative  character,  or  constituted 
Him  a  federal  head.  He  was  therefore  the  federal  head,  not  of  the 
human  race,  but  of  those  given  to  Him  by  the  Father.  And, 
therefore,  his  work,  so  far  as  its  main  design  is  concerned,  was  for 
them  alone.  Whatever  reference  it  had  to  others  was  subordinate 
and  incidental.  All  this  is  illustrated  and  proved  by  the  Apostle 
in  Romans  v.  12-21,  in  the  parallel  which  he  draws  between  Adam 
and  Clirist.  All  mankind  were  in  Adam.  He  was  the  federal 
head  and  representative  of  his  race.  All  men  sinned  in  him  and 
fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression.  The  sentence  of  condemna- 
tion for  his  one  offence  passed  upon  all  men.  In  like  manner  Christ 
was  the  representative  of  his  people.  He  acted  for  them.  What 
He  did  and  suffered  in  their  place,  or  as  their  representative,  they 
in  the  eye  of  the  law,  did  and  suffered.  By  his  obedience  they 
are  justified.  As  all  in  Adam  died,  so  all  in  Christ  are  made  alive. 
Such  is  the  nature  of  the  union  in  both  cases,  that  the  sin  of  the  one 
rendered  certain  and  rendered  just  the  death  of  all  united  to  Adam, 
and  the  righteousness  of  the  other  rendered  certain  and  just  the 
salvation  of  all  who  are  in  Him.     The  sin  of  Adam  did  not  make 


552    PART  m.     Ch.  VIII.  —  FOR  WHOM   DID   CHRIST  DIE  ? 

the  condemnation  of  all  men  merely  possible  ;  it  was  the  ground  of 
their  actual  condemnation.  So  the  righteousness  of  Christ  did  not 
make  the  salvation  of  men  merely  possible,  it  secured  the  actual 
salvation  of  those  for  whom  He  wrought.  As  it  would  be  unrea- 
sonable to  say  that  Adam  acted  for  those  who  were  not  in  him  ;  so 
it  is  unscriptural  to  say  that  Christ  acted  for  those  who  were  not 
in  Him.  Nevertheless,  the  act  of  Adam  as  the  head  and  repre- 
sentative of  his  race,  was  fruitful  of  evil  consequences,  not  to  man 
only,  but  to  the  earth  and  all  that  it  contains  ;  and  so  the  work  of 
Christ  is  fruitful  of  good  consequences  to  others  than  those  for 
whom  He  acted.  But  this  does  not  justify  any  one  in  saying  that 
Adam  acted  as  much  as  the  representative  of  the  brute  creation^ 
as  of  his  posterity ;  neither  does  it  justify  the  assertion  that  Christ 
died  for  all  mankind  in  the  same  sense  that  He  died  for  liis  own 
people.  This  is  all  so  clearly  revealed  in  Scripture  that  it  extorts 
the  assent  of  those  who  are  decidedly  opposed  to  the  Augustinian 
system.  One  class  of  those  opponents,  of  whom  Whitby  may  be 
taken  as  a  representative,  admit  the  truth  of  all  that  has  been  said 
of  the  representative  character  of  Adam  and  Christ.  But  they 
maintain  that  as  Adam  represented  the  whole  race,  so  also  did 
Christ ;  and  as  in  Adam  all  men  die,  so  in  Christ  are  all  made 
alive.  But  they  say  that  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  spiritual  death 
in  the  one  case,  or  with  the  salvation  of  the  soul  in  the  other. 
The  death  which  came  on  all  men  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  was  merely 
the  death  of  the  body ;  and  the  life  which  comes  on  all  through 
Christ,  is  the  restoration  ot  the  life  of  the  body  at  the  resurrection. 
The  Wesleyans  take  the  same  view  of  the  representative  cliarac- 
ter  of  Christ  and  of  Adam.  Each  stood  for  all  mankind.  Adam 
brings  upon  all  men  the  guilt  of  his  first  sin  and  corruption  of  na- 
ture. Christ  secures  the  removal  of  the  guilt  of  original  sin  and 
a  seed  of  grace,  or  principle  of  spiritual  life,  for  all  men.  So  also 
one  class  of  Universalists  hold  that  as  all  men  are  condemned  for 
the  sin  of  Adam,  so  all  are  actually  saved  by  the  work  of  Christ. 
Rationalists  also  are  ready  to  admit  that  Paul  does  teach  all  that 
Augustinians  understand  him  to  teach,  but  they  say  that  this  was 
only  his  Jewish  mode  of  presenting  the  matter.  It  is  not  absolute 
truth,  but  a  mere  transient  form  suited  to  the  age  of  the  Apostles. 
In  all  these  cases,  however,  the  main  fact  is  conceded.  Christ  did 
act  as  a  representative ;  and  what  He  did  secured  with  certainty 
the  benefits  of  his  work  for  those  for  whom  He  acted.  This  being 
conceded,  it  of  course  follows  that  He  acted  as  the  representative 
and  substitute  of  those  only  who  are  ultimately  to  be  saved. 


§2.]  PROOF   OF  THE  AUGUSTINIAN  DOCTRINE.  553 

6.  There  is  another  argument  on  this  subject  generally  pre- 
sented, which  ought  not  to  be  overlooked.  The  unity  of  the 
priestly  office  rendered  the  functions  of  the  priesthood  inseparable. 
The  high-priest  interceded  for  all  those  for  whom  he  offered  sacri- 
fice. The  one  service  did  not  extend  beyond  the  other.  He  bore 
upon  his  breast  the  names  of  the  twelve  tribes.  He  represented 
them  in  drawing  near  to  God.  He  offered  sacrifices  for  their  sins 
on  the  great  day  of  atonement,  and  for  them  he  interceded,  and 
for  no  others.  The  sacrifice  and  the  intercession  went  together. 
What  was  true  of  the  Aaron ic  priests,  is  true  of  Christ.  The  for- 
mer, we  are  told,  were  the  types  of  the  latter.  Christ's  functions 
as  priest  are  in  like  manner  united.  He  intercedes  for  all  for 
whom  He  offered  Himself  as  a  sacrifice.  He  himself,  however, 
says  expressly,  "  I  pray  not  for  the  world,  but  for  them  which  thou 
hast  given  me."  (John  xvii.  9.)  Him  the  Father  heareth  always, 
and,  therefore.  He  cannot  be  assumed  to  intercede  for  those  who 
do  not  actually  receive  the  benefits  of  his  redemption. 

The  Church  Doctrine  embraces  all  the  Facts  of  the  Case. 

7.  The  final  test  of  any  theory  is  its  agreeing  or  disagreeing 
with  the  facts  to  be  explained.  The  difficuhy  with  all  tiie  Anti- 
Augustinian  views  as  to  the  design  of  Christ's  deatli,  is  that 
while  they  are  consistent  with  fnore  or  less  of  the  Scriptural  facts 
connected  with  the  subject,  they  are  utterly  irreconcilable  with 
others  not  less  clearly  revealed  and  equally  important.  They 
are  consistent,  for  example,  with  the  fact  that  the  work  of  Clu-ist 
lays  the  foundation  for  the  offer  of  the  gospel  to  all  men,  with 
the  fact  that  men  are  justly  condemned  for  tlie  rejection  of  that 
offer  ;  and  witli  the  fact  that  the  Scriptures  frequently  assert  that 
the  work  of  Christ  had  reference  to  all  men.  All  these  facts 
can  be  accounted  for  on  the  assumption,  that  the  great  design  of 
Christ's  death  was  to  make  the  salvation  of  all  men  possible,  and 
that  it  had  equal  reference  to  every  member  of  our  race.  But 
there  are  other  facts  which  this  theory  leaves  out  of  view,  and 
with  which  it  cannot  be  reconciled.  On  the  other  hand  it  is 
claimed  that  the  Augustinian  doctrine  recognizes  all  the  Scriptural 
assertions  connected  with  the  subject,  and  reconciles  them  all.  If 
this  be  so,  it  must  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  The  facts  which 
are  clearly  revealed  concerning  the  death  or  work  of  Christ  are, — 

(1.)  That  God  from  eternity  gave  a  people  to  his  Son. 

(2.)  That  the  peculiar  and  infinite  love  of  God  to  his  people  is 
declared  to  be  the  motive  for  the  gift  of  his  Son ;  and  their  salva- 
tion the  desicrn  of  his  mission. 


554     PART  III.     Ch.   Vm.  — for  whom  did   CHRIST   DIE? 

(3.)  That  it  was  as  their  representative,  head,  and  substitute, 
He  came  into  the  world,  assumed  our  nature,  fulfilled  all  righteous- 
ness, and  bore  the  curse  of  the  law. 

(4.)  That  the  salvation  of  all  given  to  Him  by  the  Father,  is 
thus  rendered  absolutely  certain. 

That  the  Augustinian  scheme  agrees  with  these  great  Scriptural 
facts,  is  readily  admitted,  but  it  is  denied  that  it  accounts  for  the 
fact  that  on  the  ground  of  the  work  of  Christ,  salvation  may  be 
offered  to  every  human  being  ;  and  that  all  who  hear  and  reject 
the  gospel,  are  justly  condemned  for  their  unbelief.  That  these 
are  Scriptural  facts  cannot  be  denied,  and  if  the  Augustinian  doc- 
trine does  not  provide  for  them,  it  must  be  false  or  defective. 
There  are  different  grounds  on  which  it  is  assumed  that  the  Au- 
gustinian doctrine  does  not  provide  for  the  universal  offer  of  the 
gospel.  One  is,  the  false  assumption  that  Augustinians  teach  that 
the  satisfaction  of  Christ  was  in  all  respects  analogous  to  the  pay- 
ment of  a  debt,  a  satisfaction  to  commutative  or  commercial  jus- 
tice. Hence  it  is  inferred  that  Christ  suffered  so  much  for  so 
many ;  He  paid  so  much  for  one  soul,  and  so  much  for  another,  and 
of  course  He  would  have  been  called  upon  to  pay  more  if  more 
were  to  have  been  saved.  If  this  be  so,  then  it  is  clear  that  the 
work  of  Christ  can  justify  the  offer  of  salvation  to  those  only 
whose  debts  He  has  actually  cancelled.  To  this  view  of  the  case 
it  may  be  remarked,  — 

1.  That  this  doctrine  was  never  held  by  any  historical  church  ; 
and  the  ascription  of  it  to  Augustinians  can  only  be  accounted  for 
on  the  ground  of  ignorance. 

2.  It  involves  the  greatest  confusion  of  ideas.  It  confounds  the 
obligations  which  arise  among  men  as  owners  of  property,  with  the 
obligations  of  rational  creatures  to  an  infinitely  holy  God.  A 
debtor  is  one  owner,  and  a  creditor  is  another.  Commutative  jus- 
tice requires  that  they  should  settle  their  mutual  claims  equitably. 
But  God  is  not  one  owner  and  the  sinner  another.  Tliey  do  not 
stand  in  relation  to  each  other  as  two  proprietors.  The  obligation 
which  binds  a  debtor  to  pay  a  creditor,  and  the  principle  which 
impels  a  just  God  to  punish  sin,  are  entirely  distinct.  God  is  tiie 
absolute  owner  of  all  things.  We  own  nothing.  We  cannot  sus- 
tain to  Him,  in  this  respect,  tlie  relation  of  a  debtor  to  his  creditor. 
The  objection  in  question,  therefore,  is  founded  on  an  entire  mistake 
or  misrepresentation  of  the  attribute  of  justice,  to  which,  according 
to  Augustinians,  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  is  rendered.  Because  the 
sin  of  Adam  was  the  ground  of  the  condemnation  of  his  race,  does 


I 


§2.]  PROOF   OF  THE   AUGUSTINIAN  DOCTRINE.  555 

any  man  infer  that  He  sinned  so  much  for  one  man  and  so  much  for 
another?  Why  then  sliould  it  be  said  that  because  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  tlie  judicial  ground  of  our  salvation,  that  He  did 
and  suffered  so  much  for  one  man  and  so  much  for  another  ? 

3.  As  tliis  objection  is  directed  against  a  theory  which  no  Church 
has  ever  adopted,  and  as  it  attributes  to  God  a  form  of  justice 
which  cannot  possibly  belong  to  Him,  so  it  is  contrary  to  those 
Scriptural  representations  on  which  the  Augustinian  doctrine  is 
founded.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  Christ  saves  us  as  a  priest,  by 
offering  Himself  as  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins.  But  a  sacrifice  was 
not  a  payment  of  a  debt,  the  payment  of  so  much  for  so  much. 
A  single  victim  was  sometimes  a  sacrifice  for  one  individual ;  some- 
times for  the  whole  people.  On  the  great  day  of  atonement  the 
scape-goat  bore  the  sins  of  the  people,  whether  they  were  more  or 
less  numerous.  It  had  no  reference  at  all  to  the  number  of  persons 
for  whom  atonement  was  to  be  made.  So  Christ  bore  the  sins  of 
his  people ;  whether  they  were  to  be  a  few  hundreds,  or  countless 
millions,  or  the  whole  human  family,  makes  no  difference  as  to  the 
nature  of  his  work,  or  as  to  the  value  of  his  satisfaction.  What 
was  absolutely  necessary  for  one,  was  abundantly  sufficient  for  all. 

The  objection,  however,  is  at  times  presented  in  a  somewhat 
different  form.  Admitting  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  to  be  in  itself 
of  infinite  value,  how  can  it  avail  for  the  non-elect  if  it  was  not  de- 
signed for  them  ?  It  does  not  avail  for  the  fallen  angels,  because  it 
was  not  intended  for  them  ;  how  then  can  it  avail  for  the  non-elect, 
if  not  designed  for  them  ?  How  can  a  ransom,  whatever  its  in- 
trinsic value,  benefit  those  for  whom  it  was  not  paid?  In  this  form 
the  objection  is  far  more  specious.  It  is,  however,  fallacious.  It- 
overlooks  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  case.  It  ignores  the  fact  that 
all  mankind  were  placed  under  the  same  constitution  or  covenant. 
What  was  demanded  for  the  salvation  of  one  was  demanded  for  the 
salvatiofi  of  all.  Every  man  is  required  to  satisfy  the  demands  of 
the  law.  No  man  is  required  to  do  either  more  or  less.  If  those 
demands  ai-e  satisfied  by  a  representative  or  substitute,  his  work  is 
equally  available  for  all.  The  secret  purpose  of  God  in  providing 
such  a  substitute  for  man,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  nature  of  his 
work,  or  with  its  appropriateness.  The  righteousness  of  Christ 
being  of  infinite  value  or  merit,  and  being  in  its  nature  precisely 
what  all  men  need,  may  be  offered  to  all  men.  It  is  thus  offered 
to  the  elect  and  to  the  non-elect  ;  and  it  is  offered  to  both  classes 
conditionally.  That  condition  is  a  cordial  acceptance  of  it  as  the 
only  ground  of  justification.     If  any  of  the  elect  (being  adults} 


556    PART  m.      Ch.   VIIL  — for   whom  did   CHRIST   DIE? 

fail  thus  to  accept  of  it,  they  perish.  If  any  of  the  non-elect 
should  believe,  they  would  be  saved.  What  more  does  any  Anti- 
Augustinian  scheme  provide  ?  The  advocates  of  such  schemes 
say,  that  the  design  of  the  work  of  Christ  was  to  render  the  salva- 
tion of  all  men  possible.  All  they  can  mean  by  this  is,  that  if  any 
man  (elect  or  non-elect)  believes,  he  shall,  on  the  ground  of  Avhat 
Christ  has  done,  be  certainly  saved.  But  Augustinians  say  the 
same  thing.  Their  doctrine  provides  for  this  universal  offer  of  sal- 
vation, as  well  as  any  other  scheme.  It  teaches  that  God  in  effect- 
ing the  salvation  of  his  own  people,  did  whatever  was  necessary 
for  the  salvation  of  all  men,  and  therefore  to  all  the  offer  may  be, 
and  in  fact  is  made  in  the  gospel.  If  a  ship  containing  the  wife 
and  children  of  a  man  standing  on  the  shore  is  wrecked,  he  may 
seize  a  boat  and  hasten  to  their  rescue.  His  motive  is  love  to  his 
family ;  his  purpose  is  to  save  them.  But  the  boat  which  he  has 
provided  may  be  large  enough  to  receive  the  whole  of  the  ship's 
company.  Would  there  be  any  inconsistency  in  his  offering  them 
the  opportunity  to  escape  ?  Or,  would  this  offer  prove  that  he  had 
no  special  love  to  his  own  family  and  no  special  design  to  secure 
their  safety.  And  if  any  or  all  of  tliose  to  whom  the  offer  was 
made,  should  refuse  to  accept  it,  some  from  one  reason,  some  from 
another  ;  some  because  they  did  not  duly  appreciate  their  danger ; 
some  because  they  thought  they  could  save  themselves  ;  and  some 
from  enmity  to  the  man  from  whom  the  offer  came,  their  guilt  and 
folly  would  be  just  as  great  as  though  the  man  had  no  special  re- 
gard to  his  own  family,  and  no  special  purpose  to  effect  their  deliv- 
erance. Or,  if  a  man's  family  were  with  others  held  in  captivity, 
and  from  love  to  them  and  with  the  purpose  of  their  redemption,  a 
ransom  should  be  offered  sufficient  for  the  delivery  of  the  whole 
body  of  captives,  it  is  plain  that  the  offer  of  deliverance  might 
be  extended  to  all  on  the  ground  of  that  ransom,  although  spe- 
cially intended  only  for  a  part  of  their  number.  Or,  a  man  may 
make  a  feast  for  his  own  friends,  and  the  provision  be  so  abundant 
that  he  may  throw  open  his  doors  to  all  who  are  willing  to  come. 
This  is  precisely  what  God,  according  to  the  Augustinian  doctrine, 
has  actually  done.  Out  of  special  love  to  his  people,  and  with  the 
design  of  securing  their  salvation.  He  has  sent  his  Son  to  do  what 
justifies  the  offer  of  salvation  to  all  who  choose  to  accept  of  it. 
Christ,  therefore,  did  not  die  equally  for  all  men.  He  laid  down 
his  life  for  his  sheep  ;  He  gave  Himself  for  his  Church.  But  in 
perfect  consistency  with  all  this,  He  did  all  that  was  necessary,  so 
far  as  a  satisfaction  to  justice  is  concerned,  all   that  is  required  for 


§2.]  PROOF   OF  THE   AUGUSTINIAN  DOCTRINE.  557 

the  salvation  of  all  men.  So  that  all  Augustinians  can  join  with 
the  Synod  of  Dort  in  saying,  "  No  man  perishes  for  want  of  an 
atonement." 

If  the  Atonement  he  limited  in  Design^  it  must  he  restricted  in 

the  Offer. 

There  is  still  another  ground  on  which  it  is  urged  that  Augus- 
tinians cannot  consistently  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature. 
Augustinians  teach,  it  is  urged,  that  the  work  of  Christ  is  a  satis- 
faction to  divine  justice.  From  this  it  follows  that  justice  cannot 
condemn  those  for  whose  sins  it  has  been  satisfied.  It  cannot 
demand  that  satisfaction  twice,  first  from  the  substitute  and  then 
from  the  sinner  himself.  This  would  be  manifestly  unjust,  far 
worse  than  demanding  no  punishment  at  all.  From  this  it  is 
inferred  that  the  satisfaction  or  righteousness  of  Christ,  if  the 
ground  on  which  a  sinner  may  be  forgiven,  is  the  ground  on  which 
he  must  be  forgiven.  It  is  not  the  ground  on  which  he  may  be 
forgiven,  unless  it  is  the  ground  on  which  he  must  be  forgiven.  If 
the  atonement  be  limited  in  design  it  must  be  limited  in  its 
nature,  and  if  limited  in  its  nature  it  must  be  limited  in  its  offer. 
This  objection  again  arises  from  confounding  a  pecuniary  and  a 
judicial  satisfaction  between  which  Augustinians  are  so  careful  to 
discriminate.  Tiiis  distinction  has  already  been  presented  on  a 
previous  page  (470).  There  is  no  grace  in  accepting  a  pecuni- 
ary satisfaction.  It  cannot  be  refused.  It  ipso  facto  liberates. 
The  moment  the  debt  is  paid  the  debtor  is  free  ;  and  that  without 
any  condition.  Nothing  of  this  is  true  in  the  case  of  judicial  satis- 
faction. If  a  substitute  be  provided  and  accepted  it  is  a  matter  of 
gi'ace.  His  satisfaction  does  not  ipso  facto  liberate.  It  may  accrue 
to  the  benefit  of  those  for  whom  it  is  made  at  once  or  at  a  remote 
period  ;  completely  or  gradually;  on  conditions  or  unconditionally; 
or  it  may  never  benefit  them  at  all  unless  the  condition  on  which 
its  application  is  suspended  be  performed.  These  facts  are  uni- 
versally admitted  by  those  who  hold  that  the  work  of  Christ  was  a 
true  and  perfect  satisfaction  to  divine  justice.  The  application  of 
its  benefits  is  determined  by  the  covenant  between  the  Father  and 
the  Son.  Those  for  whom  it  was  specially  rendered  are  not  justi- 
fied from  eternity  ;  they  are  not  born  in  a  justified  state  ;  they  are 
by  nature,  or  birth,  the  children  of  wi'ath  even  as  others.  To  be 
the  children  of  wrath  is  to  be  justly  exposed  to  divine  wrath.  They 
remain  in  this  state  of  exposure  until  they  believe,  and  should  they 
die  (unless  in  infancy)  before  they  believe  they  would  inevitably 


558    PART  m.    Cm.   VIII.  — for  WHOM  DID   CHRIST  DIE? 

perisli  notwithstanding  the  satisfaction  made  for  their  sins.  It  is  tlie 
stipulations  of  the  covenant  which  forbid  such  a  result.  Such  being 
the  nature  of  the  judicial  satisfaction  rendered  by  Christ  to  the  law, 
under  which  all  men  are  placed,  it  may  be  sincerely  offered  to  all 
men  with  the  assurance  that  if  they  believe  it  shall  accrue  to  their 
salvation.  His  work  being  specially  designed  for  the  salvation  of 
his  own  people,  renders,  through  the  conditions  of  the  covenant, 
that  event  certain  ;  but  this  is  perfectly  consistent  with  its  being 
made  the  ground  of  the  general  offer  of  the  gospel.  Lutherans  and 
Reformed  agree  entirely,  as  before  stated,  in  their  views  of  the 
nature  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  and  consequently,  so  far  as  that 
point  is  concerned,  there  is  the  same  foundation  for  the  general 
offer  of  the  gospel  according  to  either  scheme.  What  the  Reformed 
or  Augustinians  hold  about  election  does  not  affect  the  nature  of 
the  atonement.  That  remains  the  same  whether  designed  for  the 
elect  or  for  all  mankind.  It  does  not  derive  its  nature  from  the 
secret  purpose  of  God  as  to  its  application. 

Certain  Passages  of  Scripture  considered. 

Admitting,  however,  that  the  Augustinian  doctrine  that  Christ 
died  specially  for  his  own  people  does  account  for  the  general  offer 
of  the  gospel,  how  Is  it  to  be  reconciled  with  those  passages  which, 
in  one  form  or  another,  teach  that  He  died  for  all  men  ?  In  answer 
to  this  question,  it  may  be  remarked  in  the  first  place  that  Augus- 
tinians do  not  deny  that  Christ' died  for  all  men.  What  they  deny 
is  that  He  died  equally,  and  with  the  same  design,  for  all  men.  He 
died  for  all,  that  He  might  arrest  the  immediate  execution  of  the 
penalty  of  the  law  upon  the  whole  of  our  apostate  race  ;  that  He 
mif^ht  secure  for  men  the  innumerable  blessino;s  attendlno;  their 
state  on  earth,  which,  in  one  important  sense,  is  a  state  of  proba- 
tion ;  and  that  He  might  lay  the  foundation  for  the  offer  of  pardon 
and  reconciliation  with  God,  on  condition  of  faith  and  repentance. 
These  are  the  universally  admitted  consequences  of  his  satisfaction, 
and  therefore  they  all  come  within  Its  design.  By  this  dispensation 
it  is  rendered  manifest  to  every  intelligent  mind  in  heaven  and 
upon  earth,  and  to  the  finally  impenitent  themselves,  that  the  per- 
dition of  those  that  perish  is  their  own  fault.  They  will  not  come 
to  Christ  that  they  may  have  life.  They  refuse  to  have  Him  to 
reign  over  them.  He  calls  but  they  will  not  answer.  He  says, 
"Him  that  cometh  to  me,  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out."  Every 
human  being  who  does  come  is  saved.  This  is  what  is  meant 
when  it  is  said,  or  implied  in  Scripture,  that  Christ  gave  Himself 


§  2.]  PROOF   OF   THE   AUGUSTINIAN  DOCTRINE.  559 

as  a  propitiation,  not  for  our  sins  only,  but  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world.  He  was  a  propitiation  efFectuallj  for  the  sins  of  his  people, 
and  sufficiently  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  Augustinians 
have  no  need  to  wrest  the  Scriptures.  They  are  under  no  neces- 
sity of  departing  from  their  fundamental  principle  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  theologian  to  subordinate  his  theories  to  the  Bible,  and 
teach  not  what  seems  to  him  to  be  true  or  reasonable,  but  simply 
what  the  Bible  teaches. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  general  terms 
are  often  used  indefinitely  and  not  comprehensively.  They  mean 
all  kinds,  or  classes,  and  not  all  and  every  individual.  When 
Christ  said,  "  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men 
unto  me,"  He  meant  men  of  all  ages,  classes,  and  conditions,  and 
not  every  individual  man.  When  God  predicted  that  upon  the 
advent  of  the  Messiah  He  would  pour  out  his  Spirit  upon  all  flesh, 
all  that  was  foretold  was  a  general  effusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  And 
when  it  is  said  that  all  men  shall  see  (experience)  the  salvation  of 
God,  it  does  not  mean  that  all  men  individually,  but  that  a  vast 
multitude  of  all  classes  shall  be  saved.  The  same  remark  applies 
to  the  use  of  the  term  world.  It  means  men,  mankind,  as  a  race 
or  order  of  beings.  No  one  hesitates  to  call  the  Lord  Jesus  the 
"  Salvator  hominum."  He  is  so  hailed  and  so  worshipped  wherever 
his  name  is  known.  But  no  one  means  by  this  that  He  actually 
saves  all  mankind.  What  is  meant  is  that  He  is  our  Saviour,  the 
Saviour  of  men,  not  of  angels,  not  of  Jews  exclusively,  nor  yet  of  the 
Gentiles  only,  not  of  the  rich,  or  of  the  poor  alone,  not  of  the  right- 
eous only,  but  also  of  publicans  and  sinners.  He  is  the  Saviour  of 
all  men  who  come  unto  Him.  Thus  when  He  is  called  the  Lamb 
of  God  that  bears  the  sin  of  the  world,  all  that  is  meant  is  that 
He  bears  the  sins  of  men  ;  He  came  as  a  sin-offering  bearing  not 
his  own,  but  the  sins  of  others. 

In  the  third  place,  these  general  terms  are  always  to  be  under- 
stood in  reference  to  the  things  spoken  of  in  the  context.  When 
all  things,  the  universe,  is  said  to  be  put  in  subjection  to  Christ  it 
is,  of  course,  to  be  understood  of  the  created  universe.  In  1  Corin- 
thians XV.  27,  Paul  expressl}'  mentions  this  limitation,  but  in  He- 
brews ii.  8,  it  is  not  mentioned.  It  Is,  however,  just  as  obviously 
involved  in  the  one  passage  as  in  the  other.  When  in  Romans  v. 
18,  it  is  said  that  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ  the  free  gift  of 
justification  of  life  has  come  upon  all  men,  it  is  of  necessity  lim- 
ited to  the  all  in  Clirist  of  whom  the  Apostle  is  speaking.  So  also 
in  1  Corinthians  xv.  22,  As  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall 


560     PART  III.     Ch.   Vm.  — for  whom   did   CHRIST  DIE? 

all  be  made  alive  (jiiMoiroL-qOrja-ovrai^  {,  e.,  quickened  with  the  life  of 
Christ),  it  is  in  both  members  of  the  sentence  not  absolutely  all, 
but  the  all  in  Adam  and  the  all  in  Christ.  This  is  still  more  obvi- 
ous in  Romans  viii.  32,  where  it  is  said  that  God  gave  up  his  own 
Son  for  us  all.  The  us  refers  to  the  class  of  persons  of  which  the 
whole  chapter  treats,  namely,  of  those  to  whom  there  is  no  con- 
demnation, who  are  led  by  the  Spirit,  for  whom  Christ  intercedes, 
etc.  Epiiesians  i.  10,  and  Colossians  i.  20,  are  favourite  texts 
with  the  Universalists,  for  they  teach  that  all  in  heaven  and  on 
earth  are  reunited  unto  God  by  Jesus  Christ.  They  are  right  in 
understanding  these  passages  as  teaching  the  salvation  of  all  men, 
if  by  all  in  this  connection  we  must  understand  all  human  beings. 
But  why  limit  the  word  to  all  men?  Why  not  include  angels  and 
even  irrational  creatures  ?  The  answer  is,  because  the  Bible  teaches 
that  Christ  came  to  save  men,  and  neither  angels  nor  irrational 
animals.  This  is  only  saying  that  all  must  be  limited  to  the  objects 
of  redemption.  Who  they  are  is  to  be  learned  not  from  these  gen- 
eral terms,  but  from  the  general  teaching  of  Scripture.  The  all  who 
are  to  be  united  in  one  harmonious  body  by  Jesus  Christ  are  the  all 
whom  He  came  to  save.  The  same  remark  applies  to  Hebrews  ii. 
9,  Christ  tasted  "  death  (un-e^  ■n-avTo^')  for  every  man."  It  is  well 
known  that  Origen  understood  this  of  every  creature ;  others,  of 
every  rational  creature  ;  others,  of  every  fallen  rational  creature ; 
others,  of  every  man ;  others,  of  every  one  of  those  given  to  the  Son 
by  the  Father.  How  are  we  to  decide  which  of  these  interpreta- 
tions is  correct?  So  far  as  the  mere  signification  of  the  words  is  con- 
cerned, one  is  as  correct  as  another.  It  is  only  from  the  analogy  of 
Scripture  that  the  meaning  of  the  sacred  writer  can  be  determined. 
Christ  tasted  death  for  every  one  of  the  objects  of  redemption. 
Whether  He  came  to  redeem  all  created  sensuous  beings,  or  all 
rational  creatures,  or  all  men,  or  all  given  to  Him  in  the  councils 
of  eternity,  the  Bible  must  decide.  The  great  majority  of  the 
passages  quoted  to  prove  that  Christ  died  equally  for  all  men  coms 
under  one  or  other  of  the  classes  just  mentioned,  and  have  no  real 
bearing  on  the  question  concerning  the  design  of  his  death. 

There  is  another  class  of  passages  with  which  it  is  said  that  the 
Augustinian  doctrine  cannot  be  reconciled ;  such,  namely,  as  speak 
of  those  perishing  for  whom  Christ  died.  In  reference  to  these 
passages  it  may  be  remarked,  first,  that  there  is  a  sense,  as  befoi-e 
stated,  in  which  Christ  did  die  for  all  men.  His  death  had  the 
effect  of  justifying  the  offer  of  salvation  to  every  man ;  and  of  course 
was  designed  to  have  that  effect.     He  therefore  died  sufficiently 


§  2.]  PROOF   OF   THE   AUGUSTINIAN   DOCTRINE.  561 

for  all.  In  the  second  place,  these  passages  are,  in  some  cases  at 
least,  hypothetical.  When  Paul  exhorts  the  Corinthians  not  to 
cause  those  to  perish  for  whom  Christ  died,  he  merely  exhorts 
them  not  to  act  selfishly  towards  those  for  whom  Christ  had  exhib- 
ited the  greatest  compassion.  The  passage  neither  asserts  nor  im- 
plies that  any  actually  perish  for  whom  Christ  died.  None  perish 
whom  He  came  to  save  ;  multitudes  perish  to  whom  salvation  is 
offered  on  the  ground  of  his  death. 

As  God  in  the  course  of  nature  and  in  the  dispensation  of  his 
providence,  moves  on  in  undisturbed  majesty,  little  concerned  at 
the  apparent  complication  or  even  inconsistency  of  one  effect  or 
one  dispensation  with  another;  so  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  Bible 
unfolds  the  purposes,  truths,  and  dealings  of  God,  just  as  they  are, 
assured  that  even  finite  minds  will  ultimately  be  able  to  see  the  con- 
sistency of  all  his  revelations.  The  doctrines  of  foreordination, 
sovereignty,  and  effectual  providential  control,  go  hand  in  hand 
with  those  of"  the  liberty  and  responsibility  of  rational  creatures. 
Those  of  freedom  from  the  law,  of  salvation  by  faith  without  works, 
and  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  holy  living  stand  side  by  side.  On 
the  same  page  we  find  the  assurance  of  God's  love  to  sinners,  and 
declarations  that  He  would  that  all  men  should  come  unto  Him  and 
live,  with  explicit  assertions  that  He  has  determined  to  leave  mul- 
titudes to  perish  in  their  sins.  In  like  manner,  the  express  declara- 
tions that  it  was  the  incomprehensible  and  peculiar  love  of  God  for 
his  own  people,  which  Induced  Him  to  send  his  Son  for  their  re- 
demption ;  that  Christ  came  into  the  world  for  that  specific  object ; 
that  He  died  for  his  sheep  ;  that  He  gave  Himself  for  his  Church  ; 
and  that  the  salvation  of  all  for  whom  He  thus  offered  Himself  is 
rendered  certain  by  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  bring  them  to  faith  and 
repentance,  are  intermingled  witii  declarations  of  good-will  to  all 
mankind,  with  offers  of  salvation  to  every  one  who  will  believe  in 
the  Son  of  God,  and  denunciations  of  wrath  against  those  who 
reject  these  overtures  of  mercy.  All  we  have  to  do  is  not  to  ignore 
or  deny  either  of  these  modes  of  representation,  but  to  open  our 
minds  wide  enough  to  receive  them  both,  and  reconcile  them  as 
best  we  can.  Both  are  true,  in  all  the  cases  above  referred  to, 
whether  we  can  see  their  consistency  or  not. 

In  the  review  of  this  subject,  it  is  plain  that  the  doctrine  that 
Christ  died  equally  for  all  men  with  the  purpose  of  rendering  the 
salvation  of  all  possible,  has  no  advantage  over  the  doctrine  that 
He  died  specially  for  his  own  people,  and  with  the  purpose  of 
rendering  their  salvation  certain.  It  presents  no  higher  view  of 
VOL.  II.  36 


562    PART  m.   Ch.   Vm.  — for  whom  did   CHRIST  DIE? 

the  love  of  God,  or  of  the  value  of  Christ's  work.  It  affoi-ds  no 
better  ground  for  the  offer  of  salvation  "  to  every  creature,"  nor 
does  it  render  more  obvious  the  justice  of  the  condemnation  of 
those  who  reject  the  gospel.  They  are  condemned  by  God,  angels, 
and  men,  and  by  their  own  consciences,  because  they  refuse  to 
believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  God  manifest  in  the  flesh, 
and  to  love,  worship,  trust,  and  obey  Him  accordingly.  The  op- 
posite, or  anti-Augustinian  doctrine,  is  founded  on  a  partial  view 
of  the  facts  of  the  case.  It  leaves  out  of  view  the  clearly  revealed 
special  love  of  God  to  his  peculiar  people ;  the  union  between  Christ 
and  his  chosen  ;  the  representative  character  which  He  assumed 
as  their  substitute  ;  the  certain  efficacy  of  his  sacrifice  in  virtue 
of  the  covenant  of  redemption  ;  and  the  necessary  connection  be- 
tween the  gift  of  Christ  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  more- 
over leads  to  confused  and  inconsistent  views  of  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion, and  to  unscriptural  and  dangerous  theories  of  the  nature  of 
the  atonement.  It  therefore  is  the  limited  and  meagre  scheme ; 
whereas  the  orthodox  doctrine  is  catholic  and  comprehensive ;  full 
of  consolation  and  spiritual  power,  as  well  as  of  justice  to  all  man- 
kind. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THEORIES  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

The  history  of  this  doctrine  is  commonly  divided  into  three  pe- 
riods, the  Patristic  ;  the  Scholastic  ;  and  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion and  from  that  event  to  the  present  day.  The  method  which 
the  writers  on  this  subject  have  usually  adopted,  is  to  pass  in  re- 
view in  chronological  order  the  distinguished  theologians  living 
during  these  several  periods,  and  present  a  general  outline  of  the 
teaching  of  each. 

The  two  great  objects  to  be  accomplished  by  the  work  of  Christ 
are,  the  removal  of  the  curse  under  which  mankind  laboured  on 
account  of  sin ;  and  their  restoration  to  the  image  and  fellowship 
of  God.  Both  these  are  essential  to  salvation.  We  have  guilt  to 
be  removed,  and  souls  dead  in  sin  to  be  quickened  with  a  new 
principle  of  divine  life.  Both  these  objects  are  provided  for  in  the 
doctrine  of  redemption  as  presented  in  the  Scriptures  and  held  in 
the  Church.  In  the  opposing  theories  devised  by  theologians,  either 
one  of  these  objects  is  ignored  or  one  is  unduly  subordinated  to 
the  other.  It  was  characteristic  of  the  early  Greek  church  to 
exalt  the  latter,  while  the  Latin  made  the  former  the  more  promi- 
nent. In  reviewing  the  history  of  the  doctrine  it  will  be  found 
that  there  are  five  general  theories  which  comprise  all  the  numer- 
ous forms  in  which  it  has  been  held. 

§  1.   The  Orthodox  View. 

The  first  is  that  which  has  been  for  ages  regarded  as  the  ortho- 
dox doctrine ;  in  its  essential  features  common  to  the  Latin,  Lu- 
theran, and  Reformed  churches.  This  is  the  doctrine  which  the 
writer  has  endeavoured  to  exhibit  and  vindicate  in  the  preceding 
pages.  According  to  this  doctrine  the  work  of  Christ  is  a  real  sat- 
isfaction, of  infinite  inherent  merit,  to  the  vindicatory  justice  of 
God ;  so  that  He  saves  his  people  by  doing  for  them,  and  in  their 
stead,  what  they  were  unable  to  do  for  themselves,  satisfying  the 
demands  of  the  law  in  their  behalf,  and  bearing  its  penalty  in  their 
stead ;    whereby   they  are    reconciled  to  God,  receive   the  Holy 


664  PART  ni.   Ch.  IX.  — theories  of  the  atonement. 

Ghost,  and  are  made  partakers  of  the  life  of  Christ  to  their  present 
sanctification  and  eternal  salvation. 

This  doctrine  provides  for  both  the  great  objects  above  men- 
tioned. It  shows  how  the  curse  of  the  law  is  removed  by  Christ's 
being  made  a  curse  for  us ;  and  how  in  virtue  of  this  reconciliation 
with  God  we  become,  through  the  Spirit,  partakers  of  the  life  of 
Christ.  He  is  made  unto  us  not  only  rigliteousness,  but  sanctifica- 
tion. We  are  cleansed  by  his  blood  from  guilt,  and  renewed  by 
his  Spirit  after  the  image  of  God.  Having  died  in  Him,  we  live  in 
Him.     Participation  of  his  death  secures  participation  of  his  life. 

§  2.  Doctrine  of  some  of  the  Fathers. 

The  second  theory  is  that  which  prevailed  extensively  among  the 
fathers.  It  was  intended  only  as  a  solution  of  the  question  how 
Christ  delivers  us  from  the  power  of  Satan.  It  contemplated 
neither  the  removal  of  guilt  nor  the  restoration  of  divine  life ;  but 
simply  our  deliverance  from  the  power  of  Satan.  It  was  founded 
on  those  passages  of  Scriptures  which  represent  man  since  the  fall 
as  in  bondage  to  the  prince  of  darkness.  The  object  of  redemption 
was  to  deliver  mankind  from  this  bondage.  This  could  only  be 
done  by  in  some  way  overcoming  Satan  and  destroying  his  right 
or  power  to  hold  men  as  his  slaves.  This  Christ  has  effected,  and 
thus  becomes  the  Redeemer  of  men.  This  general  theory  is  pre- 
sented in  thi'ee  different  forms.  The  first  appeals  to  the  old  prin- 
ciple of  the  rights  of  war,  according  to  which  the  conquered  be- 
came the  slaves  of  the  conqueror.  Satan  conquered  Adam,  and 
thus  became  the  rightful  owner  of  him  and  his  posterity.  Hence 
he  is  called  the  god  and  prince  of  this  world.  To  deliver  men 
from  this  dreadftil  bondage,  Christ  offered  Himself  as  a  ransom  to 
Satan.  Satan  accepted  the  offer,  and  renounced  his  right  to  retain 
mankind  as  his  slaves.  Christ,  however,  broke  the  bonds  of  Satan, 
whose  power  was  founded  upon  the  sinfulness  of  his  subjects. 
Christ  being  divine,  and  without  sin,  could  not  be  held  subject  to 
his  power.  In  answer  to  the  question.  How  Satan  could  accept 
Christ  as  the  ransom  for  men,  if  he  knew  Him  to  be  a  divine  per- 
son ?  it  was  said  that  he  did  not  know  Him  to  be  divine,  because 
his  divinity  was  veiled  by  his  humanity.  And  then  in  answer  to 
the  question.  How  he  could  accept  of  Him  as  a  ransom,  if  he  re- 
garded Him  as  merely  a  man  ?  it  is  said  that  he  saw  that  Christ 
was  unspeakably  superior  to  other  men,  and  perhaps  one  of  the 
higher  order  of  angels,  whom  he  might  hope  securely  to  retain. 
The  second  form  of  this  theory  does  not  regard  Christ  as  a  ransom 


§  2.]  PATRISTICAL  THEORY.  565 

paid  to  Satan,  but  as  a  conqueror.  As  Satan  conquered  mankind 
and  made  them  his  slaves ;  so  Christ  became  a  man,  and,  in  our 
nature,  conquered  Satan  ;  and  thus  acquired  the  right  to  dehver 
us  from  our  bondage  and  to  consign  Satan  himself  to  chains  and 
darkness. 

The  third  form  of  the  theory  is,  that  as  the  right  and  power  of 
Satan  over  man  is  founded  on  sin,  he  exceeded  his  authority  when 
he  brought  about  the  death  of  Christ,  who  was  free  from  all  sin  ; 
and  thus  justly  forfeited  his  authority  over  men  altogether.  This 
general  theory  that  Christ's  great  work,  as  a  Redeemer,  was  to 
deliver  man  from  bondage  to  Satan,  and  that  the  ransom  was  paid 
to  Him  and  not  to  God  ;  or  that  the  difficulty  in  the  way  of  our 
salvation  was  the  right  which  Satan  had  acquired  to  us  as  slaves, 
which  right  Christ  in  some  way  cancelled,  was  very  prevalent  for 
a  long  time  in  the  Church.  It  is  found  in  Irenaeus,  Origen,  The- 
odoret,  Basil,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Augustine,  Jerome,  Hilary,  Leo 
the  Great,  and  others.^  The  Scriptural  foundation  for  this  view  of 
the  work  of  Christ  is  very  slight.  It  is  true  that  men  are  the  cap- 
tives of  Satan,  and  under  his  dominion.  It  is  true  that  Christ  gave 
Himself  as  a  ransom  ;  and  that  by  the  payment  of  that  ransom  we 
are  freed  from  bondage  to  the  prince  of  darkness.  But  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  ransom  was  paid  to  Satan,  or  that  he  had  any  just 
claim  to  his  authority  over  the  children  of  men.  What  the  Scrip- 
tures teach  on  this  subject  is,  — 

1.  That  man  by  sin  became  subject  to  the  penalty  of  the  divine 
law. 

2.  That  Satan  has  the  office  of  inflicting  that  penalty  in  so  far 
as  he  is  allowed  to  torment  and  degrade  the  children  of  men. 

3.  That  Christ  by  his  death  having  satisfied  the  penalty  of  the 
law,  of  course  has  delivered  us  from  the  power  of  Satan.  See 
especially  Hebrews  ii.  14.  But  this  gives  no  ground  for  the  doc- 
trine that  Satan  had  any  claim  in  justice  to  hold  mankind  as  his 
slaves;  or  that  Christ  offered  Himself  as  a  ransom  to  the  prince 
of  this  world.  This  doctrine  was  strenuously  opposed  in  the  early 
Church  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  has  long  since  passed  into  obliv- 
ion. The  only  interest  which  it  now  has  is  as  a  matter  of  history. 
It  is  of  course  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  great  lights  of  the  Church 
above  mentioned  believed  that  the  whole  work  of  Christ  as  the 
Saviour  of  men  consisted  in  his  delivering  us  from  the  power  of 

1  The  proof  passages  are  given  more  or  less  at  length  in  all  the  modern  histories  of  doc- 
trine as  in  Hagenbach's  Dogmenfjeschickte,  translated  by  Dr.  B.  H.  Smith;  Miinscher's, 
and  Neander's  Do<jmengeschichte,  and  especially  in  the  elaborate  work  of  Baur  of  Tiibingen, 
Die  Lelire  von  der  Versohnunq. 


566   PART  in.  Ch.  IX.  — theories  of  the  atonement. 

Satan ;  that  they  ignored  his  office  as  a  liigh  priest  unto  God,  or 
denied  the  effect  of  his  death  as  an  expiation  for  sin,  or  forgot  that 
He  is  to  us  the  source  of  spiritual  life.  These  doctrines  are  as 
clearly  asserted  by  them  from  time  to  time  as  are  their  peculiar  views 
as  to  our  deliverance  from  the  bondage  of  Satan.  Even  Origen,  so 
unrestrained  in  his  thinking,  and  so  disposed  to  explain  Christian 
truths  philosophically,  teaches  the  catholic  doctrine  with  perfect 
distinctness.  In  his  comment  on  Romans  iii.  25,  26,  he  says,^ 
"  Cum  dixisset,  quod  pro  omni  genere  humano  redemptionem 
semetipsum  dedisset,  ....  nunc  addit  aliquid  sublimius  et  dicit, 
quia  '  proposuit  eum  Deus  propitiationem  per  fidem  in  sanguine 
ipsius  : '  quo  scilicet  per  hostiam  sui  corporis  propitium  hominibus 

faceret  Deum,  et  per  hoc  ostenderet  justitiam  suam Deus 

enim  Justus  est,  et  Justus  justificare  non  poterat  inj'ustos,  ideo  inter- 
ventum  voluit  esse  propitiatoris,  ut  per  ejus  fidem  justificarentur 
qui  per  opera  propria  justificari  non  poterant."  No  one  of  the 
Reformers  gives  a  clearer  utterance  to  tlie  truth  than  is  contained 
in  these  words.  So  also  he  says,^  "  Posuit  ergo  et  manum  suam 
super  caput  vituli :  hoc  est  peccata  generis  humani  im posuit  super 
caput  suum.  Ipse  est  enim  caput  corporis  ecclesias  suae."  In 
all  ages  of  the  Church,  by  the  early  fathers  as  well  as  in  subsequent 
periods,  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  in  reference  to  Christ 
and  his  work  is  retained.  He  is  familiarly  called  priest,  and  high 
priest,  and  held  up  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  as  a  redeemer,  as  a  ran- 
som, and  as  one  who  cancelled  our  debts.  As  the  early  fathers 
were  conversant  with  sacrifices,  and  knew  the  light  in  which  they 
were  regarded  by  the  ancient  world,  that  both  heathen  and  Jewish 
sacrifices  were  expiatory,  there  is  little  doubt  that  the  fathers,  in 
calling  Christ  a  sacrifice,  meant  to  recognize  Him  as  an  expiation 
for  our  sins,  although  it  is  admitted  that  great  vagueness,  variety, 
and  inconsistency  prevail  in  their  utterances  on  this  subject.  The 
whole  activity  of  the  cultivated  minds  was  in  the  early  ages  directed 
first  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  of  the  person  of  Christ, 
and  subsequently  to  those  concerning  sin  and  grace. 

§  3.   The  Moral  Theory/. 

A  third  general  theory  concerning  the  work  of  Christ  is  that 
which  rejects  all  idea  of  expiation,  or  of  the  satisfaction  of  justice 
by  vicarious  punishment,  and  attributes  all  the  efficacy  of  his 
work  to   the  moral  effect   produced   on   the  hearts  of  men   by  his 

1   Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris,  1759,  vol.  iv.  p.  513,  B,  a,  b,  c. 

■^  In  Leviticum  Homilia,  i.  3;  Works,  edit.  Paris,  1733,  vol.  ii.  p.  186,  d. 


§3.]  MORAL   THEORY.  567 

character,  teachings,  and  acts.  On  this 'account  it  is  usually  des- 
ignated the  "  moral  view  of  the  atonement."  The  assumption 
is  that  there  is  no  such  attribute  in  God  as  justice  ;  i.  e.,  no  per- 
fection which  renders  it  necessary,  or  morally  obligatory,  tliat  sin 
should  be  punished.  If  this  be  so,  there  is  no  need  of  expiation  in 
order  to  forgiveness.  All  that  is  necessary  for  the  restoration  of 
sinners  to  the  favour  of  God  is  that  they  should  cease  to  be  sin- 
ners. God's  relation  to  his  rational  creatures  is  determined  by  tiieir 
character.  If  they  are  morally  corrupt  they  are  repelled  from 
his  presence  ;  if  restored  to  holiness,  they  become  the  objects  of 
his  love  and  the  recipients  of  his  favours.  All  that  Christ  as  the 
Saviour  of  men,  therefore,  came  to  accomplish  was  this  moral  ref- 
ormation in  the  character  of  men.  Here,  as  so  generally  elsewhere, 
errors  are  half  truths.  It  is  true  that  God's  relation  to  his  rational 
creatures  is  determined  by  their  character.  It  is  true  that  He 
repels  sinners,  and  holds  communion  with  the  holy.  It  is  true  that 
Christ  came  to  restore  men  to  holiness,  and  thus  to  the  favour  and 
fellowship  of  God.  But  it  is  also  true  that  to  render  the  restora- 
tion of  sinners  to  holiness  possible  it  was  necessary  that  the  guilt 
of  their  sins  should  be  expiated,  or  that  justice  should  be  satisfied. 
Until  this  is  done,  they  are  under  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God. 
And  to  be  under  the  curse  of  God  is  to  be  shut  out  from  the  source 
of  all  holiness. 

Some  of  the  advocates  of  this  view  of  the  work  of  Christ  do 
indeed  speak  freely  of  the  justice  of  God.  They  recognize  Him  as 
a  just  Being  who  everywhere  and  always  punishes  sin.  But  this 
is  done  only  by  the  operation  of  eternal  laws.  Holiness,  from  its 
nature,  produces  happiness;  and  that  is  its  reward.  Sin,  from  its 
nature,  produces  misery;  and  tliat  is  its  j)unishment.  Remove  the 
sin  and  you  remove  the  punishment.  The  case  is  analogous  to 
health  and  disease.  If  a  man  is  well,  he  is  physically  happy  ;  if 
diseased,  he  is  in  a  state  of  suffering.  The  only  way  possible  to 
remove  the  suffering  is  to  remove  the  disease  ;  and  further  than 
this  nothing  can  be  required.  This  is  the  view  presented  by  John 
Young,  D.  D.i  He  says,  "  There  is  no  such  attribute  in  God  [as 
rectilineal  justice.]  But  the  inevitable  punishment  of  moral  evil 
always  and  everywhere,  is  certain  nevertheless.  The  justice  of  the 
universe  is  a  tremendous  fact,  an  eternal  and  necessary  fact  which 
even  God  could  not  set  aside.  There  is  an  irresistible,  a  real  force 
springing  out  of  its  essential  constitution  whereby  sin  punishes  sin. 
This  is  the  fixed  law  of  the  moral  universe,  a  law  in  perfect  har- 

1  Lt/t  and  Li\(/hl  of  Men,  Lontlon  and  New  York,  1866,  pp.  115,  116. 


568  PART  in.  Cii.  IX.— THEORIES  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

mony  with  the  eternal  will,  and  which  never  is  aiul  never  can  be 
broken.  God's  mercy  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  does  not  in  the 
least  set  aside  this  justice  ;  what  it  does  is  to  remove  and  render 
non-existent  the  only  ground  on  which  the  claim  of  justice  stands. 
Instead  of  arbitrarily  withdrawing  the  criminal  from  punishment,  it 
destroys  in  his  soul  tliat  evil  which  is  the  only  cause  and  reason  of 
punishment,  and  which  being  removed  punisliment  ceases  of  itself." 
The  same  doctrine  is  taught  by  Dr.  BushnelL^  Speaking  of  Christ, 
he  says,  "  His  work  terminates,  not  in  the  release  of  penalties  by 
due  compensation,  but  in  the  transformation  of  character,  and  the 
rescue,  in  that  manner,  of  guilty  men  from  the  retributive  causa- 
tions provoked  by  their  sins."  Remission  is  declared  to  be  "  spir- 
itual release  ; "  a  deliverance  from  sin  which  secures  exemption 
from  the  natural  effects  of  transgression.  This  system  necessarily 
excludes  the  idea  of  forgiveness  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word. 
To  subdue  inflammation  in  a  wound  removes  the  pain  ;  to  remove 
sin  from  the  soul  secures  exemption  from  the  pain  which  sin  neces- 
sarily produces.  The  idea  of  pardon,  in  the  latter  case,  is  as  in- 
congruous as  in  the  former.  The  Bible,  however,  is  full  of  the 
promises  of  forgiveness  and  of  the  prayers  of  the  penitent  for  par- 
doning mercy.  It  is  very  plain,  therefore,  that  this  scheme  does 
not  agree  with  the  Scriptures  ;  and  it  is  equally  plain  that  it  is  not 
a  religion  suited  to  those  who  feel  the  need  of  forgiveness. 

Coleridge,  in  his  "  Aids  to  Reflection,"  presents  the  same  view. 
In  a  note  at  the  end  of  that  work  he  gives  the  following  illustration 
of  the  subject.  A  widow  has  a  prodigal  son,  who  deserts  her  and 
leaves  her  desolate.  That  son  has  a  friend  who  takes  his  place  and 
performs  all  filial  duties  to  the  unhappy  mother.  The  prodigal,  won 
by  tlie  exhibition  of  goodness  on  the  part  of  his  friend,  returns  to  his 
home  penitent  and  reformed.  How  unreasonable  and  revolting, 
says  Coleridge,  would  it  be  to  say  that  the  friend  had  made  expia- 
tion or  rendered  a  satisfaction  to  justice  for  the  sins  of  the  prodigal. 

This  moral  view  of  the  atonement,  as  it  is  called,  has  been  pre- 
sented in  different  forms.  In  the  first  form  the  work  of  Christ  in 
the  salvation  of  men  is  confined  to  his  office  of  teacher.  He  intro- 
duced a  new  and  higher  form  of  I'eligion,  by  which  men  were  re- 
deemed from  the  darkness  and  degradation  of  heathenism.  This 
was  so  great  a  good,  and  so  patent  to  the  eyes  of  those  who  them- 
selves were  converts  from  heathenism,  and  who  were  surrounded 
bv  its  evils,  that  it  is  not  wonderful  that  some  of  the  fathers  ex- 

1   Vicarlmis  Sacrifice  grounded  in  Principles  of  Universal  Ob!i<j'ition,  edit.  New  York, 
18G6,  p.  449. 


I 


§3.]  MORAL   THEORY.  569 

alted  this  function  of  Christ  as  a  saviour,  almost  to  the  neglect  of 
every  other.  In  the  early  Cimrch,  however,  frequent  as  were  the 
recoonitions  of  the  obligations  of  men  to  Christ  as  the  Redeemer 
from  heathenism.  He  was  still  regarded  by  all  Christians  as  a  sacri- 
fice and  a  ransom.  In  later  times  these  latter  aspects  of  his  work 
were  rejected  and  the  former  only  retained. 

A  second  form  of  this  theory,  while  it  retains  the  idea  that 
ftie  real  benefit  conferred  by  Christ  was  his  doctrine,  yet  ascribes 
his  title  of  Saviour  principally  to  his  death.  As  the  Scriptures  so 
constantly  assert  that  we  are  saved  by  the  blood,  the  cross,  the 
sufferings  of  Christ,  this  feature  of  the  Scriptural  teaching  cannot 
be  overlooked.  It  is  therefore  said  that  He  saves  us,  not  as  a  sacri- 
fice, but  as  a  martyr.  He  died  for  us.  By  his  death  his  doctrines 
were  sealed  with  blood.  Not  only,  therefore,  as  attesting  his  own 
sincerity,  but  as  giving  assurance  of  the  truths  which  He  taught, 
especially  the  truths  concerning  a  future  life,  the  love  of  God,  and 
his  willingness  to  forgive  sin,  and  as  confirming  to  us  the  truth  of 
those  doctrines  He  is  entitled  to  be  regarded  as  the  Saviour  of 
men. 

Thirdly,  others  again  regard  the  power  of  Christ  in  saving  men 
from  sin,  as  not  due  to  his  teaching,  or  to  his  sealing  his  doctrines 
with  his  blood,  but  to  the  manifestation  which  He  made  of  self- 
sacrificing  love.  This  exerts  a  greater  power  over  the  hearts  of 
men  than  all  else  besides.  If  the  wicked  cannot  be  reclaimed  by 
love,  which  manifests  itself  not  only  in  words  of  gentleness,  by 
acts  of  kindness,  and  by  expressions  of  sj-mpathy,  but  also  by  en- 
tire self-saci'ifice,  by  the  renunciation  of  all  good,  and  by  voluntary 
submission  to  all  evil,  their  case  must  be  hopeless.  As  such  love 
as  that  of  Christ  was  never  before  exhibited  to  men  ;  as  no  such 
instance  of  self-sacrifice  had  ever  before  occurred,  or  can  ever 
occur  again.  He  is  the  Saviour  by  way  of  eminence.  Other  men, 
who  through  love  submit  to  self-denial  for  the  good  of  men,  are 
within  their  sphere  and  in  their  measure,  saviours  too  ;  the  work 
of  salvation  by  the  exhibition  of  self-sacrificing  love,  is  going  on 
around  us  continually,  and  from  eternity  to  eternity,  so  long  as  evil 
exists,  in  the  presence  of  beings  imbued  with  love.  Still  Christ  in 
this  work  occupies  a  place  peculiar  and  preeminent,  and  therefore 
we  are  Christians  ;  we  recognize  Christ  as  the  greatest  of  Sav- 
iours. 

Such  is  the  view  elaborately  presented  by  Dr.  Bushnell  in  the 
work  just  referred  to.  Toward  the  end  of  his  book,  however,  he 
virtually  takes  it  all  back,  and  lays  down  his  weapons,  conquered 


670  PART  m.   Ch.  IX.  — theories  of  the  atonement. 

by  the  instincts  of  his  own  religious  nature  and  by  the  authority 
of  the  Word  of  God.  He  says,  "  In  the  facts  [of  our  Lord's  pas- 
sion], outwardly  regarded,  there  is  no  sacrifice,  or  oblation,  or 
atonement,  or  propitiation,  but  simply  a  living  and  dying  thus  and 
thus.  The  facts  are  impressive  ;  the  person  is  clad  in  a  wonderful 
dignity  and  beauty  ;  the  agony  is  eloquent  of  love  ;  and  the  cross 
a  very  shocking  murder  triumphantly  met.  And  if  then  the  ques- 
tion arises,  how  we  are  to  use  such  a  histoiy  so  as  to  be  reconciled 
by  it,  we  hardly  know  in  what  way  to  begin.  How  shall  we  come 
unto  God  by  help  of  this  martyrdom?  How  shall  we  turn  it,  or 
turn  ourselves  under  it,  so  as  to  be  justified  and  set  in  peace  with 
God  ?  Plainly  there  is  a  want  here,  and  this  want  is  met  by  giv- 
ing a  thought-form  to  the  facts  which  is  not  in  the  facts  themselves. 
They  are  put  directly  into  the  moulds  of  the  altar,  and  we  are 
called  to  accept  the  crucified  God-man  as  our  saci'ifice,  an  offering 
or  oblation  for  us,  our  propitiation ;  so  as  to  be  sprinkled  from  our 
evil  conscience,  washed,  purged,  purified,  cleansed  from  our  sin. 
Instead  of  leaving  the  matter  of  the  facts  just  as  they  occurred, 
there  is  a  reverting  to  familiar  forms  of  thought,  made  familiar 
partly  for  this  purpose  ;  and  we  are  told,  in  brief,  to  use  the  facts 
just  as  we  would  the  sin-offerings  of  the  altar,  and  make  an  altar 
grace   of  them,  only  a  grace   complete   and    perfect,   an    offering 

once  for  all So  much  is  there  in  this  that,  without  these 

forms  of  the  altar,  we  should  be  utterly  at  a  loss  in  making  any  use 
of  the  Christian  facts,  that  would  set  us  in  a  condition  of  practical 
reconciliation  with  God.  Christ  is  good,  beautiful,  wonderful,  his 
disinterested  love  is  a  picture  by  itself,  his  forgiving  patience  melts 
into  my  feeling,  his  passion  rends  open  my  heart,  but  what  is  He 
for,  and  how  shall  He  be  made  unto  me  the  salvation  I  want  ?  One 
■word  —  He  is  my  sacrifice — opens  all  to  me,  and  beholding 
Him,  with  all  my  sin  upon  Him,  I  count  Him  my  offering,  I  come 
unto  God  by  Him  and  enter  into  the  holiest  by  his  blood."  "  We 
want  to  use  these  altar  terms  just  as  freely  as  they  are  used  by 
those  who  accept  the  formula  of  expiation  or  judicial  satisfaction 
for  sin  ;  in  just  their  manner  too,  when  they  are  using  them  most 
practically."  "  We  cannot  aflford  to  lose  these  sacred  forms  of  the 
altar.  They  fill  an  office  which  nothing  else  can  fill,  and  serve  a 
use  which  cannot  be  served  without  them."  ^ 

1  Bushnell  On  Vicarious  Sacrifice,  edit.  New  York,  1866,  pp.  534,  535;  p.  537;  p.  545. 


§3.J  MORAL   THEORY.  571 

Objections  to  this  Theory. 
The  obvious  objections  to  this  moral  view  of  the  atonement  in 
all  its  forms,  are,  — 

1.  That  while  it  retains  some  elements  of  the  truth,  in  that  it 
recognizes  the  restoration  of  man  to  holiness  and  God,  as  the  great 
end  of  the  work  of  Christ,  and  regards  his  work  as  involving  the 
greatest  possible  or  conceivable  manifestation  of  divine  love,  which 
manifestation  is  the  most  powerful  of  all  natural  influences  to 
operate  on  the  hearts  of  men ;  yet  it  leaves  out  entirely  what  is 
essential  to  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  atonement.  The  Bible 
exhibits  Christ  as  a  priest,  as  offering  Himself  a  sacrifice  for  the 
expiation  of  our  sins,  as  bearing  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the 
tree,  as  having  been  made  a  curse  for  us,  and  as  giving  Himself 
as  a  ransom  for  our  redemption.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  this 
expiation  of  guilt  is  absolutely  necessary  before  the  souls  of  the 
guilty  can  be  made  the  subjects  of  renewing  and  sanctifying 
grace.  Before  this  expiation  they  are  spiritually  dead  under  the 
penalty  of  the  law,  which  is  death  in  all  its  forms.  And  therefore 
while  thus  under  the  curse,  all  the  moral  influences  in  the  world 
would  be  as  useless  as  noonday  light  to  give  sight  to  the  blind,  or 
sanitary  measures  to  raise  the  dead.  In  rejecting,  therefore,  the 
doctrine  of  expiation,  or  satisfaction  to  justice,  this  theory  rejects 
the  very  essence  of  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  atonement. 

2.  This  theory  does  not  meet  the  necessities  of  our  condition. 
We  are  sinners  ;  we  are  guilty  as  well  as  polluted.  The  conscious- 
ness of  our  responsibility  to  justice,  and  of  the  necessity  of  satisfy- 
ing its  demands,  is  as  undeniable  and  as  indestructible  as  our  con- 
sciousness of  pollution.  Expiation  for  the  one  is  as  much  a 
necessity  as  sanctification  for  the  other.  No  form  of  religion,  there- 
fore, which  excludes  the  idea  of  expiation,  or  which  fails  to  provide 
for  the  removal  of  guilt  in  a  way  which  satisfies  the  reason  and 
conscience,  can  be  suited  to  our  necessities.  No  such  religion  has 
ever  prevailed  among  men,  or  can  by  possibility  give  peace  to  a 
bui'dened  conscience.  It  is  because  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  re- 
vealed as  a  propitiation  for  our  sins,  as  bearing  in  our  stead  the 
penalty  which  we  had  incurred,  that  his  blood  cleanses  us  from  all 
sin,  and  gives  that  peace  which  passes  all  understanding. 

The  idea  that  there  is  no  forgiveness  with  God  ;  that  by  inex- 
orable law  He  deals  with  his  creatures  according  to  their  subjective 
state  and  character,  and  that  therefore  the  only  salvation  necessary 
or  possible  is  sanctification,  is  appalling.     No  man  is  in  such  an 


572     PART  III.     Ch.  IX.  — theories   OF   THE   ATONEMENT. 

inward  state,  either  during  life  or  at  death,  that  he  can  stand  before 
God  to  be  dealt  with  according  to  that  state.  His  only  hope  is 
that  God  will,  and  does,  deal  with  his  people,  not  as  they  are  in 
themselves,  but  as  they  are  in  Christ,  and  for  his  sake  ;  that  He 
loves  and  has  fellowship  with  us  although  polluted  and  defiled,  as 
a  parent  loves  and  delights  in  a  misshapen  and  unattractive  child. 
We  should  be  now  and  always  in  hell,  if  the  doctrine  of  Dr. 
Young  were  true,  that  justice  by  an  inexorable  law  always  takes 
effect,  and  that  sin  is  always  punished  wherever  it  exists,  as  soon 
as  it  is  manifested,  and  as  long  as  it  continues,  God  is  something 
more  than  the  moral  order  of  the  universe ;  He  does  not  adminis- 
ter his  moral  government  by  inexorable  laws  over  which  He  has 
no  control.  He  can  have  mercy  on  whom  He  will  have  mercy, 
and  compassion  on  whom  He  will  have  compassion.  He  can  and 
does  render  sinners  happy,  in  spite  of  their  sin,  for  Christ's  sake, 
remitting  to  them  its  penalty  while  its  power  is  only  partially 
broken  ;  fostering  them,  and  rejoicing  over  them  until  their  restora- 
tion to  spiritual  health  be  completed.  Anything  that  turns  the 
sinner's  regard  inward  on  himself  as  a  ground  of  hope,  instead  of 
bidding  him  look  to  Christ,  must  plunge  him  into  despair,  and 
despair  is  the  portal  of  eternal  death.  In  any  view,  therefore, 
whether  as  bold  rationalistic  Deism,  or  as  the  most  high-toned  por- 
traiture of  divine  love,  the  moral  theory  of  the  atonement  presents 
no  rational,  because  no  Scriptural,  ground  for  a  sinner's  hope  toward 
God.  He  must  have  a  better  righteousness  than  his  own.  He 
must  have  some  one  to  appear  before  God  in  his  stead  to  make 
expiation  for  sin,  and  to  secure  for  him,  independently  of  his  own 
subjective  state,  the  full  pardon  of  all  his  offences,  and  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

3.  All  the  arguments  presented  on  the  preceding  pages,  in 
favour  of  the  doctrine  of  expiation,  are  of  course  arguments  against 
a  theory  which  rejects  that  doctrine.  Besides,  this  theory  evi- 
dently changes  the  whole  plan  of  salvation.  It  alters  all  our  rela- 
tions to  Christ,  as  our  head  and  representative,  and  the  ground  of 
our  acceptance  with  God  ;  and  consequently  it  changes  the  nature 
of  religion.  Christianity  is  one  thing  if  Christ  is  a  sacrifice  for 
sin ;  and  altogether  a  different  thing  if  He  is  onl}^  a  moral  reformer, 
an  example,  a  teacher,  or  even  a  martyr.  We  need  a  divine  Saviour 
if  He  is  to  bear  our  iniquities,  and  to  make  satisfaction  for  the  sins 
of  the  world  ;  but  a  human  saviour  is  all  that  is  needed  if  the 
moral  theory  of  the  atonement  is  to  be  adopted.  Gieseler  says, 
what  every  Christian  knows  must  be  true  without  being  told,  that 


I 


§  4.]  GOVERNMENTAL   THEORY.  573 

the  fatliers  in  treating  of  the  qualifications  of  Christ  as  a  Saviour, 
insisted  that  He  must  be,  (1.)  God  ;  (2.)  a  man  ;  and  (3.)  as  man 
free  from  sin.^  It  is  a  liistorical  fact  that  the  two  doctrines  of  tlie 
divinity  of  Clirist,  and  expiation  through  the  blood  of  the  Son  of 
God,  have  gone  hand  in  hand.  Tiie  one  has  seldom  been  long 
held  by  those  who  deny  the  other.  The  doctrine  of  expiation, 
therefore,  is  so  wrouglit  into  the  whole  system  of  revealed  truth, 
that  its  rejection  eflfects  a  radical  change,  not  only  in  the  theology, 
but  also  in  the  religion  of  the  Bible. 

§  4.   The  Crovernmental  Theory. 

This  theory  was  introduced  into  the  Church  by  Grotius,  in  the 
seventeenth  century.  He  wrote  in  opposition  to  the  Socinians,  and 
therefore  his  book  is  entitled:  "Defensio  fidei  catholicaa  de  satis- 
factione  Christi."  It  is  in  point  of  learning  and  ability  all  that 
could  be  expected  from  one  of  the  greatest  men  of  his  generation. 
The  design  with  which  the  book  was  written,  and  the  universally 
received  formulas  of  expression  at  that  time  prevailing,  to  the  use 
of  which  Grotius  adheres,  give  his  work  an  aspect  of  orthodoxy. 
He  speaks  of  satisfaction  to  justice,  of  propitiation,  of  the  penal 
character  of  our  Lord's  sufFerino-s,  of  his  death  as  a  vicarious  sacri- 
fice,  and  of  his  bearing  the  guilt  of  our  sins.  In  short,  so  far  as  the 
use  of  terms  is  concerned,  there  is  hardly  any  departure  from  the 
doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church,  of  which  he  was  then  a  member. 
Different  principles,  however,  underlaid  his  whole  theory,  and, 
therefore,  a  different  sense  was  to  be  attached  to  the  terms  he 
used.  There  was,  after  all,  no  real  satisfaction  of  justice,  no  real 
substitution,  and  no  real  enduring  of  the  penalty  of  the  law.  His 
Socinian  opponents,  when  they  came  to  answer  his  book,  said  that 
he  had  given  up  all  the  main  principles  in  dispute.  Grotius  was  a 
jurist  as  well  as  a  theologian,  and  looked  at  the  whole  subject  from 
a  juridical  standpoint.     Tlie  main  elements  of  his  theory  are,  — 

1.  That  in  the  forgiveness  of  sin  God  is  to  be  regarded  neither 
as  an  offended  party,  nor  as  a  creditor,  nor  as  a  master,  but  as  a 
moral  governor.  A  creditor  can  remit  the  debt  due  to  him  at 
pleasure  ;  a  master  may  punish  or  not  punish  as  he  sees  fit ;  but  a 
ruler  must  act,  not  according  to  his  feelings  or  caprice,  but  with  a 
view  to  the  best  interests  of  those  under  his  authority.  Grotius 
says  that  the  overlooking  the  distinctions  above  indicated  is  the 
fundamental  error  of  the  Socinians.^    In  opposition  to  this  view,  he 

1  DogmengescMchte,  pp.  384,  385,  beinc;  the  sixth  volume  of  his  Ecclesiasticnl  History. 

2  Be  Satisfactione,  u.  [§  3] ;    Worka,  edit.  London,  1679,  vol.  iii.  p.  307,  a,  25-34.    "  Vult 


574  PART  III.  Ch.  IX.  — theories  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

says :  "■  Omnino  hie  Deum  considerandum,  ut  rectorem.  Nam 
poenas  infligere,  aut  a  poem's  aliquem  liberare,  quern  punire  pos- 
sis,  quod  justificare  vocat  Scriptura,  non  est  nisi  rectoris  qua  talis 
prime  et  per  se :  ut,  puta,  in  familia  patris ;  in  republiea  regis,  in 
universe  Dei."  ^ 

2.  The  end  of  punishment  is  the  prevention  of  crime,  or  the 
preservation  of  order  and  the  promotion  of  the  best  interests  of  the 
community.  "  Justitiae  rectoris  pars  est  servare  leges  etiam  positi- 
vas  et  a  se  latas,  quod  verum  esse  tarn  in  universitate  libera  quam 
in  rege  summo  probant  jurisconsulti :  cui  illud  est  consequens,  ut 
rectori  relaxare  legem  non  liceat,  nisi  causa  aliqua  accedat,  si  non 
necessaria,  certe  sufficiens  :  quae  itidem  recepta  est  a  jurisconsultis 
sententia.  Ratio  utriusque  est,  quod  actus  ferendi  aut  relaxandi 
legem  non  sit  actus  absoluti  dominii,  sed  actus  imperii,  qui  tendere 
debeat  ad  boni  ordinis  conversationem."  ^  On  a  previous  page,  he 
had  said,  in  more  general  terms :  "  Poena  omnis  propositum  habet 
bonum  commune,  ordinis  nimirum  conservationem  et  exemplum." 

3.  As  a  good  governor  cannot  allow  sin  to  be  committed  with 
immunity,  God  cannot  pardon  the  sins  of  men  without  some  ade- 
quate exhibition  of  his  displeasure,  and  of  his  determination  to 
punish  it.  This  was  the  design  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ.  God  punished  sin  in  Him  as  an  example.  This  example 
was  the  more  impressive  on  account  of  the  dignity  of  Christ's  per- 
son, and  therefore  in  view  of  his  death,  God  can  consistently  with 
the  best  interests  of  his  government  remit  the  penalty  of  the  law 
in  the  case  of  penitent  believers. 

4.  Punishment,  Grotius  defined  as  suffering  inflicted  on  account 
of  sin.  It  need  not  be  imposed  on  account  of  the  personal  demerit 
of  the  sufferer  ;  nor  with  the  design  of  satisfying  justice,  in  the  ordi- 
nary and  proper  sense  of  that  word.  It  was  enough  that  it  should 
be  on  account  of  sin.  As  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  caused  by 
our  sins,  insomuch  as  they  were  designed  to  render  their  remis- 
sion consistent  with  the  interest  of  God's  moral  government,  they 
fall  within  this  comprehensive  definition  of  the  word  punishment. 
Grotius,  therefore,  could  say  that  Christ  suffered  the  punishment  of 
our  sins,  as  his  sufferings  were  an  example  of  what  sin  deserved. 

5.  The  essence  of  the  atonement,  therefore,  according  to  Gro- 

(Socimis)  partem  omnem  offensam  esse  poena;  creditorem:  atque  in  ea  tale  liabere  jus,  quale 
alii  creditores  in  rebus  sibi  debitis,  quod  jus  saepe  etiam  dominii  voce  appellat:  ideoque 
saepissime  repetit  Deum  hie  spectandum,  ut  partem  oft'ensam,  ut  creditorem,  ut  doininum, 
tria  hsec  ponens  tanquam  tantundem  valentia.  Hie  error  Socini  .  .  .  per  totam  ipsius 
tractationeni  difFusus  ....  ipsius  to  npiaTov  i/zeOfios  [estj." 
1  Ibid.  II.  [§  1];  p.  305,  b,  20-2i.  2  Jbid.  v.  [§  11];  p.  317,  b,  31-41. 


i 


§4.]  GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  675 

tius  consisted  in  this,  that  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  were 
designed  as  an  exhibition  of  God's  displeasure  against  sin.  They 
were  intended  to  teach  that  in  the  estimation  of  God  sin  deserves 
to  be  punished,  and,  therefore,  that  the  impenitent  cannot  escape 
the  penalty  due  to  their  bffences.  *'  Nihil  iniquitatis  in  eo  est  quod 
Deus,  cujus  est  summa  potestas  ad  omnia  per  se  non  injusta,  nulli 
ipse  legi  obnoxius,  cruciatibus  et  morte  Christi  uti  voluit,  ad  statu- 
endum  exemplum  grave  adversus  culpas  immensas  nostrum  omni- 
um, quibus  Christus  erat  conjunctissimus,  natura,  regno  vadimo- 
nio."^  Again:  "Hoc  ipso  Deus  non  tantum  suum  adversus 
peccata  odium  testatum  fecit,  ac  proinde  nos  hoc  facto  a  peccatis 
deterruit  (facilis  enim  est  collectio,  si  Deus  ne  resipiscentibus  qui- 
dem  peccata  remittere  voluit,  nisi  Christo  in  poenas  succedente, 
multo  minus  inultos  sinet  contumaces)  verum  insigni  modo  insuper 
patefecit  summum  erga  nos  amorem  ac  benevolentiam  :  quod  ille 
scilicet  nobis  pepercit,  cui  non  erat  dSta^opov,  indifferens,  punire 
peccata,  sed  qui  tanti  id  faciebat,  ut  potius  quam  impunita  omnino 
dimitteret,  Filium  suum  unigenitum  ob  ilia  peccata,  poenis  tradide- 
rit."  ^  It  thus  appears  that,  according  to  this  theory,  the  work  of 
Christ  was  purely  didactic.  It  was  designed  to  teach,  by  way  of  an 
example,  God's  hatred  of  sin.     The  cross  was  but  a  symbol. 

Remonstrants. 

The  Synod  of  Dort  met  two  years  after  the  publication  of  the 
work  in  which  this  theory  was  propounded.  Grotius  joined  those 
who  remonstrated  against  the  decisions  of  that  Synod,  and  who  on 
that  account  were  called  Remonstrants.  The  Remonstrant  theo- 
logians, however,  did  not  as  a  class  adhere  to  Grotius's  peculiar 
doctrine.  They  did  not  regard  the  work  of  Christ  as  a  govern- 
mental transaction,  but  adhered  to  the  Scriptural  mode  of  repre- 
sentation. They  spoke  of  his  death  as  a  sacrifice  and  ransom. 
They  rejected  indeed  the  Church  doctrine.  They  denied  that 
what  Christ  did  was  a  satisfaction  of  justice  ;  that  He  bore  the  pen- 
alty of  the  law ;  that  He  acted  as  our  substitute,  fulfilling  in  our 
place  all  the  demands  of  the  law.  As  these  ideas  have  no  part, 
according  to  their  view,  in  the  doctrine  of  sacrifices  for  sin,  so  they 
have  no  place  in  the  true  doctrine  concerning  the  work  of  Christ. 
Under  the  Old  Testament  a  sacrifice  was  not  an  equivalent  for  the 
penalty  incurred ;  it  was  not  a  satisfaction  to  justice  ;  the  victim 
did  not  do  what  the  offerer  ought  to  have  done.     It  was  simply  a 

1  Grotius,  De  Satisfactime,  iv.  [§  18] ;  vol.  iii.  p.  315,  b.  9-14. 

2  Jbid.  V.  [§  8] ;  p.  317,  a,  12-24. 


576  PART  III.  Ch.  IX. —  THEORIES  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

divine  ordinance.  God  saw  fit  to  ordain  that  the  offering  a  sacri- 
fice shonkl  be  the  condition  of  the  pardon  of  the  violations  of  the 
ceremonial  law.  So  also  He  has  seen  fit  to  ordain  that  the  sacri- 
ficial death  of  Christ  should  be  the  condition  of  the  pardon  of  sin 
under  the  gospel.  Even  a  ransom  is  no  proper  equivalent.  The 
holder  of  a  captive  may  take  what  he  pleases  as  the  condition  of 
deliverance.  On  this  point  Limborch  says  :  "  In  eo  errant  quam 
maxime,  quod  velint  redemtionis  pretium  per  omnia  sequivalens  esse 
debere  miserise  illi,  e  qua  redemtio  fit,  redemtionis  pretium  enim 
constitui  solet  pro  libera  sestimatione  illius,  qui  captivum  detinet, 
non  autem  pro  captivi  merito.  Ita  pretium,  quod  Christus  persol- 
vit,  juxta  Dei  patris  gestimationem  persolutum  est."  ^  This  is  the 
old  Scholastic  doctrine  of  "  acceptatio ;  "  a  thing  avails,  irrespect- 
ive of  its  inherent  value,  for  Avhat  God  sees  fit  to  take  it.  The 
death  of  Christ  was  no  more  a  satisfaction  for  sin,  than  that  of  bulls 
and  of  goats  under  the  old  dispensation.  God  saw  fit  to  make  the 
latter  the  condition  of  the  pardon  of  violations  of  the  ceremonial 
law  ;  and  He  has  seen  fit  to  make  the  former  the  condition  of  the 
pardon  of  sins  against  the  moral  law. 

The  Supernaturalists. 

Although  the  Remonstrants  as  a  body  did  not  accept  of  the 
governmental  theory  as  proposed  by  Grotius,  his  main  idea  was 
frequently  reproduced  by  subsequent  writers.  This  was  done 
especially  by  the  Supernaturalists  in  Germany  in  their  endeavours 
to  save  something  from  the  destructive  princi])les  of  the  Rational- 
ists. They  conceded  that  the  work  of  Christ  was  not  strictly  a 
satisfaction  to  justice.  They  taught  that  it  Avas  necessary  as  an 
example  and  a  symbol.^  It  was  designed  as  a  manifestation  of 
God's  displeasure  against  sin  ;  and,  therefore,  necessaiy  to  render 
its  formveness  consistent  with  the  interests  of  God's  moral  govern- 
ment.  This  is  true  of  Staudlin,  Flatt,  and  even  of  Storr.  Speak- 
ing of  the  first  of  these  writers,  Baur  says,  "  It  was  admitted  that 
in  the  New  Testament  doctrine  concerning  the  death  of  Jesus  the 
Old  Testament  idea  of  a  sin  offering  as  a  substitute  and  satisfaction 

1  Limborch,  Theologia  Christiana,  iii.  xxi.  8,  edit.  Amsterdam,  1715,  p.  262,  a. 

2  The  word  "symbol,"  however,  is  used  in  two  senses.  Sometimes  it  is  synonymous 
■with  sign.  Thus  it  is  common  to  say  that  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper  are  the 
symbols  of  Christ's  bodj'  and  blood.  At  other  times,  a  symbol  is  that  which  expresses 
the  analog)'  between  the  outward  and  inward.  Thus,  in  one  view,  the  atoning  death  of 
Christ  is  symbolical  of  God's  feelings  towards  sinners.  In  another  view,  the  struggles  and 
triumph  of  our  Lord  in  conflict  with  physical  evil  are  symbolical  of  the  believer's  struggles 
and  triumph  in  the  conflict  with  sin.  The  former  was  an  illustration  of  the  latter,  and 
intended  to  encourage  the  people  of  God  with  the  assurance  of  success. 


§4.]  GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY.  577 

was  actually  contained,  and  therefore  that  the  Church  doctrine  ol 
satisfaction  agreed  with  the  literal  sense  of  the  Scriptures ;  yet  it 
was  insisted  upon  that  this  literal  doctrine  of  the  Bible  involved 
difficulties  affecting  our  moral  nature,  and  was  evil  in  its  practical 
effects,  and  inconsistent  with  what  the  Scriptures  themselves  else- 
where taught  of  guilt,  merit,  imputation,  and  of  God's  justice." 
Hence,  he  goes  on  to  say,  that  to  escape  from  this  dilemma  it  was 
taught  that  when  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  said  "  that  Jesus 
suffered  punishment  in  the  place  of  men,  and  procured  for  them 
the  forgiveness  of  sin,  this  can  only  mean  that  God,  through  the 
death  of  Christ  and  the  sufferings  therewith  connected,  declared 
himself  to  be  the  righteous  judge  of  all  evil."  ^ 

C.  Ch.  Flatt  endeavoured  to  find  "  a  middle  way  between  the 
course  of  those  who  introduced  into  the  Scriptures  their  own  phi- 
losophical opinions,  or  the  philosophy  of  the  age  in  which  they 
lived,  and  the  strict  grammatical,  historical  interpretation  of  those 
who  insisted  on  taking  the  words  of  Scripture  either  in  their  etymo- 
logical sense,  or  in  that  sense  in  which  it  can  be  historically  proved 
that  at  least  a  part  of  the  contemporaries  of  the  sacred  writers 
understood  them,  or  which  stupid  Rabbinical  literalists  attached  to 
certain  phrases  without  regard  to  the  fact  how  often  the  meanino- 
of  words,  without  a  change  of  form,  through  higher  culture  and 
refinement  of  moral  feeling,  is  spiritualized  and  ennobled."  ^  This 
middle  way,  according  to  Flatt,  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
main  design  of  Christ's  death  as  viewed  by  Himself  was  effectually 
to  correct  the  false  ideas  of  the  Jews  concernino-  the  Messiah's 
kingdom  as  one  of  earthly  splendor,  and  to  open  the  way  for  the 
entrance  of  his  doctrine  which  taught  that  blessedness  is  to  be 
secured  by  moral  excellence.  This  doctrine  of  Flatt  agrees  with 
the  governmental  theory  so  for  as  it  denies  the  Church  doctrine  of 
a  satisfaction  to  justice,  and  makes  the  design  of  Christ's  death 
purely  didactic. 

Storr,  in  all  his  works,  and  especially  in  his  "  Commentary  on 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,"  and  his  dissertation  on  the  design  of 
Christ's  death,  makes  the  Scriptures  his  authoritative  guide,  and 
therefore  approaches  mucli  nearer  to  the  Church  doctrine  than 
perhaps  any  German  theologian  of  his  generation.  He  assumes 
that  Christ  as  man  was  bound  to  render  the  same  obedience  to  the 
divine  law  as  is  due  from  all  other  men.  But  in  virtue  of  the 
union  of  his  human  with  the  divine  nature  He  as  man  was  entitled 

1  Lehre  von  der  Versohnung,  Tubingen,  1838,  pp.  597,  598. 

2  Von  der  Vemohnunr/,  Zvveiter-  Tlieil,  Stuttgart,  17.)8,  Vorrede,  p.  xxxii. 
VOL.  II.  37 


578     PART  III.     Ch.   IX. —theories   OF   THE   ATONEMENT. 

to  all  the  exaltation  and  blessedness  of  which  humanity  is  capable. 
Any  reward,  therefore,  for  his  perfect  obedience,  and  especially 
for  his  death  on  the  cross,  must  be  some  benefit  granted  to  others 
for  his  sake.  The  salvation  of  his  people,  therefore,  is  the  Re- 
deemer's reward.  Such  benefit,  however,  could  not  consistently 
be  bestowed  on  sinners  unless  the  death  of  "Christ  liad  been  a 
vindication  of  the  righteousness  of  God  by  being  intended  as  an 
"  example  of  punishment ;  "  a  manifestation  of  God's  hatred  of  sin 
and  of  his  determination  to  punish  it.^ 

American  TJieologians. 

The  governmental  theory  of  the  atonement  seems  to  have  had 
an  entirely  independent  origin  in  this  country.  It  was  the  neces- 
sary consequence  of  the  principle  that  all  virtue  consists  in  benevo- 
lence. If  that  principle  be  correct,  all  the  moral  attributes  of  God 
are  modifications  of  benevolence.  There  is  no  such  perfection  in 
God  as  justice  other  than  the  purpose  and  disposition  to  promote 
happiness.  The  death  of  Christ,  therefore,  could  have  no  other 
design  than  to  render  the  forgiveness  of  sin  consistent  with  the  best 
interests  of  the  moral  government  of  God.  Tliis  theory  was  elab- 
orated by  the  younger  President  Edwards,  presented  in  full  in  Dr. 
Beman's  work  on  the  Atonement,  and  adopted  by  that  numerous 
and  highly  influential  class  of  American  theologians  who  embraced 
the  principle  on  which  the  theory,  as  held  in  this  country,  is 
founded.  In  the  work  of  Dr.  E.  A.  Park,  of  Andover,  on  the 
Atonement,  there  is  a  collection  of  discourses  from  the  pens  of  the 
most  distinguished  teachers  of  this  doctrine.  In  the  introduction 
to  that  volume  Professor  Park  gives  an  interesting  histoiy  of  the 
development  of  this  view  of  the  atonement  as  held  in  this  country. 

Objections  to  the  Theory. 

1.  The  first  and  most  obvious  objection  to  this  theory  is  that  it 
is  founded  on  an  erroneous  idea  of  the  nature  of  punishment.  It 
assumes  that  the  special  design  of  punishment  is  the  good  of  society. 
If  the  best  interests  of  a  community,  cither  human  or  divine,  a  com- 
monwealth of  men  or  the  moral  government  of  God,  can  be  secured 
without  the  punishment  of  crime,  then  no  such  punishment  ought 
to  be  inflicted.  But  suffering  inflicted  for  the  good  of  others  is  not 
punishment  any  more  than  suffering  inflicted  for  the  good  of  the 
sufferer.     The  amputation  of  a  crushed  limb  is  not  of  the  nature 

1  G.  Ch.  Storr,  Pauli  Brief  au  die  Hebraer.  Zweiler  Theil,  iiber  den  eigentlichen  Zweck  des 
Todes  Jesn.  Tubingen,  1789. 


§4.]  GOVERNMENTAL   THEORY.  579 

of  punisliment ;  neither  are  the  sufferings  of  martyrs,  although 
intended  to  redound  to  the  good  of  the  Church  and  of  the  world. 
The  sufferings  of  Paul,  which  were  so  abundant  and  so  constant, 
although  so  fruitful  of  good,  were  not  penal.  And  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  if  incurred  in  the  discharge  of  his  mission  of  mercy,  and  not 
judicially  inflicted  in  execution  of  the  penalty  of  the  law,  had  no 
more  tendency  to  show  God's  abhorrence  of  sin  than  the  sufferings 
of  the  martyrs. 

No  evil  is  of  the  nature  of  punishment  unless  it  be  inflicted  in 
satisfiiction  of  justice  and  in  execution  of  the  penalty  of  law.  A 
writer  in  the  "  British  Quarterly  Review "  for  October,  1866, 
says:  "There  is  a  story  of  an  English  judge  who  once  said  to  a 
criminal,  '  You  are  transported  not  because  you  have  stolen  these 
goods,  but  that  goods  may  not  be  stolen.'  "  The  reviewer  tiien 
adds,  "  No  principle  more  false  in  itself  or  more  ruinous  to  pubHc 
morality  was  ever  announced  from  the  English  bench.  The  whole 
moral  effect  of  punishment  lies  in  its  being  just.  The  man  who 
suffers  for  the  benefit  of  others  is  a  martyr  and  not  a  convict."  It 
is  on  this  false  principle  that  the  whole  governmental  theory  of  the 
atonement  is  founded.  It  admits  of  no  ground  of  punishment  but 
the  benefit  of  others.  And  if  that  benefit  can  be  otherwise  se- 
cured all  necessity  for  punishment  ceases,  and  all  objection  to  the 
dispensing  of  pardon  is  removed.  If  the  fundamental  principle  of 
a  theory  be  false,  tlie  theory  itself  must  be  unsound. 

2.  The  theory  conti'adicts  the  intuitive  moral  judgments  of  men. 
The  testimony  of  every  man's  conscience  in  view  of  his  own  sins 
is  that  he  deserves  to  be  punished,  not  for  the  good  of  others,  but 
for  his  own  demerit.  If  not  guilty  he  cannot  justly  be  punished  ; 
and  if  guilty  he  cannot  justly  be  pardoned  without  satisfaction  to 
justice.  As  this  is  the  testimony  of  conscience  with  regard  to  our 
own  sins,  it  is  the  testimony  of  the  consciousness  of  all  men  with 
regard  to  the  sins  of  others.  When  a  o-reat  crime  is  committed, 
the  instinctive  judgment  of  men  is  that  the  perpetrators  ought  to 
be  punished.  No  analysis  of  human  consciousness  can  resolve  this 
sentiment  of  justice  into  a  conviction  of  the  understanding  that  the 
interests  of  society  demand  tiie  punishment  of  crime.  That  indeed 
is  true.  It  is  one  of  the  incidental  benefits,  but  not  the  special 
design  or  end  of  punishment.  Indeed,  the  whole  moral  effect  of 
punishment  depends  upon  the  assumption  tliat  it  is  inflicted  on  the 
ground  of  ill  desert,  and  not  for  the  public  good.  If  the  latter  ob- 
ject be  made  prominent,  punishment  loses  its  nature  and  of  course 
its  appropriate  moral  effect.     A  theory  which  ignores  these  intui- 


580    PART  III.     Ch.   IX.  — theories   OF   THE   ATONEMENT. 

tive  convictions  of  the  mind  is  not  suited  to  our  state,  and  never 
can  satisfy  the  conscience.  We  know  that  we  deserve  to  be  pun- 
ished. We  know  that  we  ought  to  be  pimished,  and  therefore 
that  punishment  is  inevitable  under  the  government  of  a  just  God. 
If  it  is  not  borne  by  a  substitute  in  our  stead,  it  must  be  borne  by 
ourselves.  Where  tjiere  is  no  expiation  for  sin  there  is  inevitably 
a  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment. 

3.  All  the  arguments  heretofore  urged  in  proof  that  the  justice 
of  God  cannot  be  resolved  into  benevolence  are  valid  arguments 
against  the  governmental  theory  of  the  atonement.  The  doctrine 
that  happiness  is  the  highest  good,  and  that  all  virtue  consists  in 
the  desire  and  purpose  to  promote  the  greatest  possible  amount  of 
happiness,  is  almost  discarded  from  the  schools,  and  should  be  dis- 
carded from  theology  where  it  has  wrought  so  much  evil.  It 
is  so  inconsistent  with  our  moral  nature,  to  assert  that  there  is 
no  difference  between  right  and  wrong  except  that  between  the 
expedient  and  the  inexpedient,  that  the  doctrine  could  never  have 
been  adopted  except  as  a  means  of  solving  difficulties  for  the  un- 
derstanding, at  the  expense  of  the  conscience.  This  point  has 
been  already  considered  when  treating  of  the  attributes  of  God 
and  of  the  design  of  creation  ;  and  therefore  it  need  not  be  further 
discussed  in  this  place. 

4.  A  fourth  argument  against  the  governmental  theory  is  that  it 
is  unscriptural.  The  Bible  constantly  represents  Christ  as  a  priest, 
as  a  sacrifice,  as  a  propitiation,  as  an  expiation,  as  the  substitute 
and  representative  of  sinners  ;  as  assuming  their  place  and  sus- 
taining the  curse  or  penalty  of  the  law  in  their  stead.  All  these 
representations  are  either  ignored  or  explained  away  by  the  advo- 
cates of  this  theory.  Governments,  civil  commonwealths,  from 
which  the  principles  and  illustrations  of  this  theory  are  derived, 
know  nothing  of  priests,  sacrifices,  and  vicarious  punishments. 
And,  therefore,  these  ideas  do  not  enter,  and  cannot  be  admitted 
into  the  governmental  theory.  But  these  ideas  are  the  vital  ele- 
ments of  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  the  atonement ;  so  that  if  we 
renounce  them  we  renounce  the  doctrine  itself,  or  at  least  seriously 
impair  its  integrity  and  power.  Whole  volumes  on  the  atonement 
have  been  written  in  which  the  woi*ds  priest,  sacrifice,  and  pro- 
pitiation hardly  occur. 

5.  This  theory,  as  well  as  the  moral  view  of  the  atonement,  is 
false,  because  defective.  As  it  is  true  that  the  work  of  Christ  is 
designed  and  adapted  to  exert  the  most  powerful  moral  influence 
on  sinners  to  induce   them  to  return  to   God,  so  it  is  true   that 


§5.]  THE   MYSTICAL   THEORY.  581 

his  work  was  designed  and  adapted  to  produce  the  strongest  possi- 
ble impression  on  the  minds  of  all  intelligent  creatures  of  the  evil 
of  sin,  and  thus  restrain  them  from  the  commission  of  it,  but  nei- 
ther the  one  nor  the  other  was  its  primary  design.  It  has  this 
moral  impression  on  the  sinner  and  upon  the  intelh'gent  universe, 
because  it  was  a  satisfaction  to  the  justice  of  God,  and  the  strongest 
of  all  proofs  that  sin  cannot  be  pardoned  without  an  expiation,  or 
adequate  atonement. 

§  5.   The  Mystical  Theory. 

The  fourth  theory  on  this  subject  is  the  mystical.  This  agrees 
with  the  moral  view  (under  which  it  might  be  included),  in  that 
it  represents  the  design  of  Christ's  work  to  be  the  production  of  a 
subjective  effect  in  the  sinner.  It  produces  a  change  in  him.  It 
"overcomes  the  evil  of  his  nature  and  restores  him  to  a  state  of  holi- 
ness. The  two  systems  differ,  however,  as  to  the  means  by  which 
this  inward  change  is  accomplished.  According  to  the  one  it  is  by 
moral  power  operating  according  to  the  laws  of  mind  by  the  ex- 
hibition of  truth  and  the  exercise  of  moral  influence.  According 
to  the  other  it  is  by  the  mysterious  union  of  God  and  man,  of  the 
divine  with  the  human  nature,  i.  «.,  of  divinity  with  humanity, 
brought  about  by  the  incarnation. 

This  general  idea  is  presented  in  various  forms.  Sometimes  the 
writers  quoted  in  favour  of  this  mystical  view  teach  nothing  more 
than  what  has  ever  been  held  in  the  Church,  and  what  is  clearly 
taught  in  the  Scriptures.  It  is  true  that  there  is  a  moral  and 
spiritual  union  between  God  and  man  effected  by  the  incarnation 
of  the  Son  of  God  and  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  and 
his  people  are  one.  Our  Lord  prays  to  the  Father,  John  xvii. 
22,  23,  tiiat  those  given  to  Him  "  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are 
one  :  I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me."  And  the  Apostle  Peter  does 
not  hesitate  to  say  tliat  we  are  made  "  partakers  of  the  divine  na- 
ture." This,  and  no  more  than  tiiis,  is  necessarily  implied  in  the 
oft-quoted  language  of  Athanasius  in  reference  to  Christ,  auro? 
ivr]i'6pu)7rr](Te\',  li/a  rjixeli  O^oTTOL-qOui^iv.  But  besides  this  Scriptural  doc- 
trine there  has  prevailed  a  mystical  view  of  the  union  of  God 
and  man  to  which  the  redemption  of  our  race  is  ascribed,  and  in 
which,  by  some  of  its  advocates,  it  is  made  exclusively  to  consist. 
So  far  as  the  fathers  are  concerned,  a  clear  distinction  was  made 
between  redemption  and  reconciliation  ;  between  the  objective 
work  of  Christ  in  delivering  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law  and  from 
the  power  of  Satan,  and  the  subjective  application  of  that  work. 


582  PART  m.   Ch.  IX.  — theories  of  the  atonement. 

Both  were  ascribed  to  Christ.  The  former  (our  redemption),  was 
effected  by  his  bearing  our  sins,  by  his  being  made  a  curse  for  us, 
by  his  giving  Himself  as  a  ransom,  and  by  his  obedience  being 
taken  as  a  substitute  for  tlie  obedience  which  we  had  failed  to  ren- 
der. Our  reconciliation  with  God,  including  restoration  to  his 
image  and  fellowship,  was  effected,  not,  as  the  Church  has  ever 
taught,  by  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  according  to  the  mys- 
tical theory,  by  the  union  of  the  divine  nature  with  our  fallen 
nature,  brought  about  by  the  incarnation.  In  all  ages  of  the 
Church  there  have  been  minds  disinclined  to  rest  in  the  simple 
statements  of  the  Bible,  and  disposed  to  strive  after  something 
more  philosophical  and  profound.  Among  the  early  fathers,  Miin- 
scher  says,  there  was  an  obscure  and  peculiar  notion  that  in  some 
way  the  coming  of  Clu'ist  had  produced  b.  physical  effect  upon  our 
race  to  ennoble  it  and  render  it  immortal.^  At  times  this  idea  is 
advanced  in  general  terms  and  without  any  attempt  to  explain 
philosophically  how  this  effect  was  produced.  As  Adam  was  the 
cause  of  the  seeds  of  death  and  corruption  being  introduced  into 
liuman  nature,  so  Christ  was  the  means  of  introducing  a  principle 
of  life  and  innnortality  which  operates  as  leaven  in  a  mass  of 
dough.  Or,  as  any  affection  of  one  member  of  the  body,  especially 
of  the  head,  affects  the  whole  system,  so  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
and  his  life  has  a  physical  effect  upon  the  whole  mass  of  mankind. 
They  regarded  the  human  race  as  one  mass  which,  inasmuch  as 
Christ  had  united  Himself  with  it  by  his  incarnation,  was  restored 
to  its  original  j)erfection  and  made  immortal.-  This  idea  was  more 
perfectly  worked  out  by  the  realists.  They  held  humanity  to 
be  a  generic  substance  and  life,  of  which  individual  men  are  the 
modes  of  existence  ;  and  they  also  held  that  it  was  this  generic 
humanity,  and  not  merely  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul  that 
Christ  assumed  into  personal  union  with  his  divine  nature';  thus 
an  element  of  divinity  was  introduced  into  humanity,  by  which  it 
is  restored  and  ennobled,  and  according  to  some,  finally  deified. 

Among  the  Platonizing  fathers,  however,  the  mystical  operation 
of  the  incarnatit)n  was  connected  with  their  doctrine  of  the  Logos. 
What  the  real  doctrine  of  the  fathers  and  of  Philo  their  j)redeces- 
sor  and  master  in  this  matter  concerning  the  Logos  was,  has  ever 
been  a  matter  of  dispute  among  the  learned.  It  is  not  at  all  even 
yet  a  settled  matter  whether  Philo  regarded  the  Logos  as  a  person 

1  Bof/mengeschichie,  ii.,  vi.  §  122,  2d  edit.  Marburg,  1818,  vol.  iv.  p.  285. 

2  Gieseler's  Kirchenijeschichte  iv.  in.  ii.  5,  §  97,  edit.   Bonn,  1855;  vol.  vi.  p.  384.     Miin 
scher's  Dogmengeschichte ,  vol.  iv.  p.  286. 


§5.]  THE   MYSTICAL   THEORY.  583 

or  not.  Dorner,  one  of  the  latest  and  most  competent  authorities 
on  this  point,  takes  the  negative  side  of  the  question.  According  to 
him  Philo  taught  that  the  Logos  was  (1.)  A  faculty  of  God,  the 
vovs  or  understanding,  and  also  the  power  of  God.  The  two  are 
united  ;  thought  and  power.  (2.)  The  Logos  is  the  activity  of 
God ;  not  merely  the  power  of  thought  and  of  creating,  but  also 
the  actual  activity  of  God  in  thinking  and  creating.  God  first 
created  by  thinking  an  ideal  world,  after  which  the  actual  world 
was  to  be  fashioned.  As  a  builder  forms  in  his  mind  the  plan  of  a 
city  in  all  its  details,  before  he  carries  that  plan  into  execution ; 
and  as  the  dwelling-place  of  that  ideal  city  is  the  understanding  of 
the  builder,  so  the  ideal  world  is  in  the  mind  of  God,  i.  g.,  in  the 
Logos.  (3.)  According  to  Phllo  the  Logos  is  not  only  the  think- 
ing principle  which  forms  this  ideal  world,  but  the  ideal  world 
itself.  (4.)  This  plenitude  of  ideas  which  constitutes  the  ideal 
world  is  the  reality,  life,  and  intelligence  of  the  actual  world.  The 
latter  is  (or  becomes)  by  the  union  of  the  ideal  with  matter,  what 
it  is.  The  /coo-/xo9  vorjro^  is  realized  in  the  koct/xos  ala-O-qro';.  The 
Logos,  therefore  (or  the  divine  intelligence  and  activity),  is  the 
life  and  intelligence  of  the  actual  world.  He  is  the  reason  in  all 
rational  creatures,  ancrels  and  men.^  According  to  Philo  the  Lofjos 
was  on  the  one  hand  identical  with  God,  and  on  the  other  identical 
with  the  world  as  its  interior  reality  and  life. 

Li  the  hands  of  the  Platonizing  fathers  this  doctrine  was  only 
modified.  Some  of  them,  as  Origen,held  that  the  Logos  was  a  per- 
son eternally  begotten  of  the  Father ;  according  to  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus,  He  was,  as  the  Logos  eVSta6'ero?,  eternally  in  God  as  his 
wisdom,  and  therefore  impersonal  ;  but  as  the  Logos  irpocpopLKo?,  or 
united  to  the  world  as  its  formative  principle,  He  became  a  person. 
In  applying  these  philosophical  speculations  to  the  explanation  of 
the  doctrine  concerning  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  there  is  no 
little  diversity  among  these  writers,  so  far  as  the  details  are  con- 
cerned. In  substance  they  agree.  The  eternal  Logos  or  Son, 
became  truly  a  man,  and  as  such  gave  Himself  as  a  sacrifice  and 
ransom  for  the  redemption  of  men.  He  also  by  his  incarnation 
secures  our  recovery  from  the  power  of  sin  and  restoration  to  the 
image  and  fellowship  of  God.  How  this  latter  object  is  accom- 
plished is  the  mystical  part  of  the  theory.  The  Logos  is  the  eter- 
nal Son  of  God  ;  but  He  is  also  the  interior  life  and  substance  of 
the  world.     Rational  creatures  included  in  the  world,  are  endowed 

1  See  Do-  ler's  Entwicklunffsgeschichte  der  Lehre  von  der  Person  Christi.     2d   Edition. 
Stuttgart,  1845.    Introduction,  pp.  26-12. 


584    PART  III.     Ch.   IX.  — theories   OF   THE   ATONEMENT. 

with  personality  and  freedom.  Some  of  them,  both  angels  and 
men,  have  turned  away  from  the  Logos  which  is  their  life.  A 
renewed  union  of  the  divine  with  the  human  restores  them  to  their 
normal  relation.  The  original  creation  of  man  was  imperfect. 
The  divine  element  was  not  strong  enough  to  secure  a  right  de- 
velopment, hence  evil  occurred.  A  larger  infusion  of  the  divine 
element  corrects  the  evil,  and  secures  the  restoration  ultimately, 
according  to  Origen,  of  all  rational  creatures  to  holiness  and  God. 
The  Logos  is  the  Mediator,  the  High-Priest  between  God  and 
man  (or  rather  God  and  the  world).  One  with  God,  He  is  also 
one  with  the  world.  He  unites  the  two,  and  they  become  one. 
The  system  has  a  pantheistic  aspect,  although  it  admits  the  free- 
dom of  rational  creatures,  and  the  separate  existence,  or  an  exist- 
ence as  self  of  the  world.  The  M'hole  universe,  however,  God  and 
world,  is  one  vast  organism  in  which  God  is  the  only  life  and 
the  only  reason,  and  this  life  and  reason  are  the  Logos.  And  it  is 
by  giving  the  Logos,  the  rational  or  spiritual  element,  renewed 
power,  that  the  world  of  rational  creatures,  who  in  the  abuse  of 
their  freedom  have  turned  away  from  God,  are  brought  back  not 
only  to  a  real  or  substantial,  but  also  to  a  cordial  union  with  God, 
so  that  He  becomes  all  in  all. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century  John  Scotus  Erigena 
anticipated  most  of  the  results  of  the  highest  modern  speculation. 
Sclielling  and  Hegel  had  him  for  a  predecessor  and  guide.  With 
him  "  Creator  et  creatura  unum  est.  Deus  est  omnia,  et  omnia 
Deus."  The  creation  is  necessary  and  eternal ;  the  incarnation  is 
necessary  and  eternal ;  and  redemption  is  necessary  and  eternal. 
All  is  process.  An  eternal  unfolding  of  the  infinite  in  the  finite, 
and  return  of  the  finite  into  the  infinite.  Erigena,  from  his  place 
in  history  and  his  relation  to  the  Church,  was  forced  to  clothe  his 
philosophy  as  much  as  possible  with  the  drapery  of  Christianity  ; 
this  secured  for  him  an  influence  which  continued  long  after  his 
death  over  later  speculative  theologians. 

During  the  Middle  Ages  there  was  a  succession  of  advocates  of 
the  mystical  theory.  Some  of  them  following  Erigena  adopted  a 
system  essentially  pantheistic ;  others  were  theistic.  The  one  class 
strove  to  reduce  Christianity  into  a  system  of  philosophy.  They 
adopted  the  principle  of  Erigena,  "  Conficitur  inde,  veram  esse 
philosophiam  veram  religionem,  conversimqne,  veram  religionem 
esse  veram  philosophiam."  The  two  sources  of  knowledge  are 
recta  ratio  and  vera  aucforitas.  Both  are  divine  as  coming  from 
God.     Reason,  however,  as  first,  is  the  higher,  and  nothing  is  to 


§5.]  THE   MYSTICAL   THEORY.  585 

be  admitted  as  true  whicli  reason  does  not  authenticate.^  The 
other  class  strove  after  fellowsliip  with  God,  Both  assumed  that 
what  Miinscher  and  Gieseler  call  the  physical  union  of  the  divine 
and  human  natures,  was  the  normal  and  ultimate  state  of  man. 
Whether  this  identity  of  the  two  was  effected  by  a  perfect  devel- 
opment of  God  in  man  and  nature  ;  or  by  the  elevation  of  the 
human  until  it  is  lost  in  the  divine,  the  result  Is  the  same.  Man  is 
deified.  And  therein  is  his  salvation.  And  so  far  as  Christ  was 
recognized  as  a  Saviour  at  all,  it  was  as  the  bond  of  itnion  between 
the  two,  or  the  channel  through  which  the  divine  flows  into  the 
human.  The  incarnation  itself,  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human 
natures,  was  the  great  saving  act.  Christ  redeems  us  by  what  He 
is,  not  by  what  He  does.  The  race,  say  some,  the  consummated 
Church,  say  others,  is  the  God-man,  or  God  manifest  in  the  flesh. 
Almost  all  this  class  of  writers  held  that  the  incarnation  would 
have  been  necessary,  had  man  never  sinned.  The  necessity  arises 
out  of  the  nature  of  God  and  his  relation  to  the  world,  and  out  of 
the  nature  and  destiny  of  man. 

Mystical  Theory  at  the  Time  of  the  Reformation. 

At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  the  same  mode  of  apprehending 
and  presenting  Christianity  was  adopted.  While  the  Reformers 
held  to  the  great  objective  trutl>3  of  the  Bible,  to  a  historical 
Christ,  to  the  reality  and  necessity  of  his  obedience  and  satisfaction 
as  something  done  for  us  and  in  our  place,  i.  e.,  to  an  objective  re- 
demption and  justification,  a  class  of  writers  soon  appeared  who 
insisted  on  what  they  called  the  Christ  within  us,  and  merged  the 
objective  work  of  Christ  into  a  subjective  operation  in  the  souls  of 
his  people  ;  or  at  least  subordinated  the  former  entirely  to  the 
latter.  A  work,  entitled  "Die  Deutsche  Theologie "  (German 
Theology),  was  published  during  the  lifetime  of  Luther,  which 
contained  a  great  amount  of  important  truth,  and  to  which  the 
illustrious  reformer  acknowledged  himself  greatly  indebted.  In 
that  book,  however,  the  mystical  element  was  carried  to  a  danger- 
ous extreme.  While  the  historical  facts  respecting  Christ  and  his 
redeeming  work  were  allowed  to  remain,  little  stress  was  laid  upon 
them.  The  real  value  of  the  blessings  receiv^ed  from  Christ,  was 
the  change  effected  in  the  soul  itself;  and  that  change  was  not 
referred  to  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  much  as  to  the  union 
of  the  divine  nature  with  our  nature,  in  virtue  of  the  incarnation. 
The  book  teaches  that  if  it  were  possible  for  a  man  to  be  as  pure 

1  De  Divisione  Naturae,  i.  56,  66,  69. 


583     TART  III.     Ch.  IX. —  theories   OF   THE   ATONEMENT. 

and  obedient  as  Christ,  lie  would  become,  throuirb  si'ace,  what 
Christ  was  by  nature.  Through  this  obedience  he  would  become 
one  with  God.  Christ  is  not  merely  objective,  isolated  in  his 
majesty,  but  we  are  all  called  that  God  should  be  incarnate  in  us, 
or  that  we  should  become  God. 

Osiander. 

Osiander  and  Schwenkfeld,  two  contemporaries  of  Luther,  were 
both  advocates,  although  in  different  forms,  of  the  same  theory. 
Men  are  saved  by  the  substantial  union  of  the  divine  nature  with 
the  nature  of  man.  According  to  Osiander  justification  is  not  by 
the  imputation,  but  by  the  infusion  of  righteousness.  And  the 
righteousness  infused  is  not  the  righteousness  of  Christ  wrought 
out  here  on  earth.  What  Christ  did  centuries  ago  cannot  make 
us  righteous.  What  we  receive  is  his  divine  nature.  This  is  the 
specific  doctrine  for  which  Osiander  was  denounced  in  the  Form 
of  Concord.  Man,  according  to  him,  was  originally  created  not 
after  the  image  of  God  as  such,  nor  of  the  Son  as  such,  but  of  the 
Son  as  He  was  to  become  man.  Manhood  was  eternally  included 
in  the  idea  and  nature  of  the  Son  of  God.  His  incarnation  was, 
therefore,  due  to  his  nature,  and  not  to  the  accident  of  man's  sin- 
ning. The  idea  of  the  incarnation  is  eternal,  and  in  reference  to 
it  the  whole  universe  was  created  and  all  things  consist.  Christ's 
human  nature  is  only  the  vehicle  for  conveying  to  us  his  divine 
nature.  In  the  vine,  he  says,  there  are  two  natures,  the  one  is  the 
nature  of  the  wood,  which  it  retains,  even  if  it  should  be  withered 
up  ;  the  other  is  "plane  occulta,  fructifera  et  vinifera  natura."  And 
as  the  clusters  of  grapes  could  not  have  the  vinous  nature,  unless 
they  were  wood  of  the  wood  of  the  vine  ;  so  neither  can  we  partake 
of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  unless  we,  by  faith  and  baptism,  are 
so  incorporated  with  Him,  as  to  be  flesh  of  his  flesh  and  bone  of 
his  bone.  But  the  human  nature  of  Cluist,  without  the  divine  (si 
sine  Deo  esset),  would  be  of  no  avail.^ 

Schwenkfeld. 

While  Osiander  makes  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  as  communi- 
cated to  us  our  righteousness  and  life,  and  regards  his  hvunanity  as 
only  the  means  of  communication,  Schwenkfeld  exalts  the  human 
into  the  divine,  and  regards  this  divine  human  nature  as  the  source 
of  life  tons.  He  agreed  with  Osiander  in  making  justification  sub- 
jective, by  the  infusion  of  righteousness  ;  and  also  in  teaching  that 
1  Confession,  p.  144,  p.  88  (  ?  ). 


§5.]  THE  MYSTICAL   THEORY.  587 

the  righteousness  which  is  infused  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ ; 
but  instead  of  depreciating  the  human  nature  and  making  it  only 
the  channel  for  communicating  the  divine,  he  laid  special  stress  on 
the  humanity  of  Christ.  The  human  nature  of  Christ  was  not  a 
creature.  It  was  formed  out  of  the  substance  of  God  ;  and  after 
its  sojourn  on  earth,  was  even  as  to  the  body,  rendered  completely 
or  perfectly  divine,  so  that  whatever  can  be  predicated  of  God,  can 
be  predicated  of  the  humanit}'  of  Christ.  Nevertheless,  the  human 
nature  was  not  so  absorbed  into  the  divinity,  that  Christ  had  but 
one  nature.  He  continues  God  and  man,  but  as  man  is  God. 
And  this  divine  human,  or  human  divine  nature,  is  communicated 
to  us  by  faith.  Faith  itself  is  the  first  communication  of  the  divine 
essence,  the  final  result  of  which  is  the  complete  deification  of  man. 
The  substance  of  God  is  not  communicated  to  the  race  of  men,  so 
that  God  becomes  thus  identified  with  men  in  general.  It  is  in 
the  regenerated  that  this  union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  is 
consummated.  It  cannot  escape  notice,  that  the  views  of  this  class 
of  writers,  so  far  as  results  are  concerned,  difi^er  but  little  from 
those  of  the  modern  speculative  theologians  of  Germany  and  their 
followers  in  England  and  America.  The  obvious  objection,  that 
if  salvation  depends  on  the  union  of  the  divine  nature  with  ours, 
and  if  this  union  be  due  to  the  incarnation  of  Christ,  those  living 
before  his  advent  in  the  flesh  must  be  excluded  from  the  benefits 
of  his  theanthropic  nature,  is  very  unsatisfactorily  answered  by  the 
modern  theologians  referred  to.  Schwenkfeld  had  no  hesitation 
in  cutting  the  knot.  In  a  Sendbrief  written  in  1532,  in  which 
he  treats  of  the  difference  between  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
economies,  he  says,  that  under  the  former  there  was  no  saving 
faith,  and  no  justification,  and  that  all  the  patriarchs  had  therefore 
perished  foi'ever. 

Schwenkfeld's  followers  were  numerous  enough  to  form  a  dis- 
tinct sect,  which  continues  to  this  day.  Some  religionists,  both  in 
Germany  and  in  this  country,  are  still  called  by  his  name.  All  the 
writers  on  the  history  of  doctrine  give  the  authorities  for  the  state- 
ments concerning  the  doctrines  of  Osiander  and  Schwenkfeld 
derived  from  sources  not  generally  accessible  in  this  country. 

Oetinger. 

The  prominent  representative  of  the  mystical  theory  during 
the  eighteenth  century,  was  Friedrich  Christopher  Oetinger,  a 
distinguished  theologian  of  South  Germany.  He  was  born  in 
1702,  and  died  in  1782.     He  enjoyed  every  advantage  of  culture 


588     PART  III.     Cn.  IX.  — THEORIES   OF   THE   ATONEMENT. 

in  science,  theology,  and  philosophy,  which  he  diligently  improved. 
After  his  death  it  was  said,  "  When  Oetinger  died  a  whole  acad- 
emy of  science  died."  Very  early  in  life,  he  says,  lie  adopted  and 
avowed  the  purpose,  "  to  understand  whatever  he  learnt."  By 
this  he  meant  that  he  would  receive  nothing  on  authority.  All 
that  the  Scriptures  teach  as  doctrine,  must  be  sublimated  into 
truths  of  the  reason  and  received  as  such.  He  avowed  it  to  be 
his  purpose  to  furnish  a  philosophia  sacra  as  a  substitute  for  the 
systems  of  profane  philosophy.  For  this  purpose  he  devoted  him- 
self to  the  study  of  all  previously  received  systems,  extending  his 
researches  to  the  cabala  of  the  Jews,  and  the  mystical  writers 
of  the  Church  ;  to  alchemy  and  to  all  departments  of  science 
within  his  reach.  He  professed  special  reverence  for  Jacob 
Bohme,  the  great  unlettered  theosophist  of  the  preceding  century, 
to  whom  even  Schelling  and  other  of  the  leading  modern  philoso- 
phers bow  as  to  an  acknowledged  seer.  Oetinger  examined  the 
several  systems  in  vogue  before  or  during  his  own  period.  Idealism 
and  materialism,  and  realistic  dualism  were  alike  unsatisfactory. 
He  assumed  life  to  be  the  primordial  principle.  Life  was  the 
aggregate  of  all  forces.  These  in  God  are  united  by  a  bond  of 
necessity.  In  things  out  of  God  the  union  of  these  forces  is  not 
necessary  ;  and  hence  evil  may  arise,  and  has,  in  fact,  arisen.  To 
remove  this  evil  and  bring  all  tlifngs  back  to  God,  the  eternal 
Logos  became  man.  He  adopted  the  old  Platonic  idea,  that  in 
the  Logos  were  the  originales  rerum  antequarn  exstiterunt  formae  : 
omnia  constiterunt  in  ipso  archetypice  sive  actu.  This  plenitude  of 
the  Godhead  dwells  in  Christ  and  renders  his  humanity  divine. 
The  union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in  Christ,  secures  the 
complete  deification  of  his  human  nature.  The  hypostatical  union 
of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  is  the  norm  of  the  mystical  union  be- 
tween Christ  and  his  people.  "Ut  ibi  adsumta  caro  consistit  ev  Xoyw 
per  participationem  uTroo-Tao-cws,  ita  hie  nostra  subsistit  in  Christo  per 
consortium  gratias  et  ^ei'as  e^vVew?,"  etc.^  The  second  Adam  having 
assumed  humanity,  says  Oetinger,  "Traxit  carnem  nostram  in  pleni- 
tudinem  Deitatis,"  so  that  our  race  again  becomes  possessed  of  the 
divine  nature  in  Him  and  in  us  ;  i.  g.,  "  unione  turn  personali  tum 
mystica."^  It  is  indeed  plain,  as  Dorner  says,  that  we  find  in  Oetin- 
ger the  ideas  which  are  the  foundation  of  the  philosophy  of  the  pres- 
ent age.  The  nature  of  God  and  the  nature  of  man  are  so  homoge- 
neous that  they  may  be  united  and  constitute  one,  which  is  rlivine 
human  or  human  divine.     We  are  saved  not  by  the  work  of  Christ 

1  See  Dorner,  Person  Christi,  1st  edit.  Stuttgart,  1839,  pp.  305-322.  2  /bid,  p.  317. 


§6.]  .  CONCLUDING   REMARKS.  589 

for  us,  but  by  his  work  in  us.     The  eternal  Son  is  incarnate  not 
in  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  but  in  the  Church. 

The  Modern   Views. 

In  the  present  period  of  the  Church's  history,  this  mystical 
theory  of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ  is  probably  more  preva- 
lent tlian  ever  before.  The  whole  school  of  German  speculative 
theologians,  with  their  followers  in  England  and  America,  are  on 
this  ground.  Of  these  theologians  there  are,  as  remarked  above, 
two  classes,  the  pantheistic  and  the  theistic.  According  to  the 
former,  the  nature  of  man  at  first  was  an  imperfect  manifestation 
of  the  absolute  Being,  and  in  the  development  of  the  race  this 
manifestation  is  rendered  complete ;  but  complete  only  as  an 
eternal  progress.  According  to  the  other,  man  has  an  existence 
and  personality?  in  one  sense,  outside  of  God.  Nevertheless  God 
and  man  are  substantially  the  same.  This  identity  or  sameness  is 
shown  perfectly  in  Christ,  and  through  Him,  is  realized  more  and 
more  perfectly  in  the  Church  as  some  teach,  or,  as  others  say,  in 
the  whole  race.^ 

§  6.   Concluding  HemarJcs. 

In  reviewing  these  several  theories  concerning  the  method  of 
salvation  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  important  to  re- 
mark, — 

1.  That  it  is  not  to  be  inferred  because  certain  writers  are 
quoted  as  setting  forth  one  particular  theory,  that  they  recognized 
the  truth  of  no  other  view  of  the  work  of  Christ.  This  remark  is 
/especially  applicable  to  the  patristic  period.  While  some  of  the  fa- 
'thers  speak  at  times  of  Christ's  saving  the  world  as  a  teacher,  and 
others  of  them  say  tliat  He  gave  himself  as  a  ransom  to  Satan,  and 
others  again  that  He  brings  men  back  to  the  image  of  God,  this 
does  not  prove  that  they  ignored  the  fact  that  he  was  a  sin  offer- 
ing, making  expiation  for  the  guilt  of  the  world.  It  is  character- 
istic of  the  early  period  of  the  Church,  before  special  doctrines  had 
become  matters  of  controversy,  that  the  people  and  the  theologians 
retain  the  common  language  and  representations  of  the  Bible ; 
while  the  latter,  especially,  dwell  sometimes  disproportionately  on 
one  mode  of  Scriptural  representation,  and  sometimes  dispropor- 
tionately on  another.  The  fathers  constantly  speak  of  Christ  as  a 
priest,  as  a  sacrifice,  and  as  a  ransom.  They  ascribe  our  salvation 
to  his  blood  and  to  his  cross.     The  ideas  of  expiation  and  propitia- 

1  On  these  views  see  above  the  chapters  on  the  Person  and  Work  of  Christ. 


590     PART  m.     Cii.  IX.  — THEORIES   OF   THE    ATONEMENT. 

tion  were  wrought  into  all  the  services  of  the  early  Church.  These 
Scriptural  ideas  sustained  the  life  of  the  people  of  God  entirely 
independently  of  the  speculations  of  philosophical  theologians. 

2.  The  second  remark  which  the  preceding  survey  suggests  is, 
that  the  theories  antagonistic  to  the  common  Church  doctrine  are 
purely  philosophical.  Origen  assumed  that  in  man  there  are  the 
three  constituent  principles  :  body,  soul,  and  spirit ;  and  that  in 
analogy  therewith,  there  are  three  senses  of  Scripture,  —  the  his- 
torical, the  moral,  and  the  spiritual.  The  first  is  the  plain  mean- 
ing of  the  words  which  suggests  itself  to  any  ordinary,  intelligent 
reader  ;  the  second  is  the  allegorical  application  of  the  historical 
sense  for  moral  instruction.  For  example,  what  Moses  commands 
about  not  muzzling  an  ox  which  treads  out  the  corn,  may  be  un- 
derstood as  teaching  the  general  principle  that  labour  should  be 
rewarded,  and,  therefore,  may  be  applied  as  it  is  by  the  Apostle, 
to  enforce  the  duty  of  supporting  ministers  of  the  Gospel.  The 
third  or  spiritual  sense,  is  the  general  philosophical  truth,  which  is 
assumed  to  underlie  the  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures  ;  of  which 
truths  the  Scriptural  doctrines  are  only  the  temporary  .forms. 
Thus  Origen  made  the  Bible  teach  Platonism.  The  object  of 
most  of  the  early  apologists,  was  to  show  that  Christianity  had  a 
philosophy  as  well  as  heathenism  ;  and  that  the  philo.sophy  of  the 
former  is  identical  with  the  philosophy  of  the  latter  so  far  as  that 
of  the  latter  can  prove  itself  to  be  true.  The  trouble  was,  and 
always  has  been,  that  whatever  philosophy  was  assumed  to  be  true, 
the  doctrines  of  Scripture  were  made  to  conform  to  it  or  were 
sublimated  into  it.  The  historical  and  moral  senses  of  Scripture 
constitute  the  object  of  faith  ;  the  spiritual  sense  is  the  object  of 
gnosis  or  knowledge.  The  former  is  very  well  in  its  place  and  for 
the  people  ;  but  the  latter  is  something  of  a  higher  order  to  which 
only  the  philosophically  cultivated  can  attain.  That  the  mystical 
theory  of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  especially,  is  the  product 
of  philosophical  speculation  is  obvious  —  (1.)  From  the  express 
avowals  of  its  most  distinguished  advocates.  (2.)  From  the 
nature  of  the  theory  itself,  which  reveals  itself  as  a  philosophy, 
i.  e.,  as  a  speculative  doctrine  concerning  the  nature  of  being,  the 
nature  of  God,  the  nature  of  man,  and  of  the  relation  of  God  to 
the  world,  etc.  (3.)  From  the  fact  that  it  has  changed  with  the 
varying  systems  of  philosophy.  So  long  as  Platonism  was  in 
vogue,  the  spiritual  sense  of  Scripture  was  assumed  to  be  Pla- 
tonism ;  that  system  discarded,  the  schoolmen  adopted  the  philoso- 
phy of  Aristotle,  and    then    the  Bible   taught   the   doctrines    of 


§  6.]  CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  591 

Peripateticism.  Those  of  them  who  followed  Scotus  Erigena 
found  Pantheism  in  the  Scriptures.  When  the  philosophy  of 
Leibnitz  and  Wolf  dominated  the  schools,  that  philosophy  deter- 
mined the  form  of  all  Scriptural  doctrine.  And  since  the  rise  of 
the  new  speculative  philosophy  all  that  the  Scriptures  teach  is 
cast  in  its  forms  of  thought.  No  man  can  be  so  blind  as  not  to 
see  that  all  that  is  peculiar  in  what  the  modern  theology  teaches 
of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than 
the  application  of  modern  speculative  philosophy  to  the  doctrines 
of  the  Bible.  This,  indeed,  is  generally  admitted  and  avowed. 
This  being  the  case,  all  these  speculations  are  without  authority. 
They  form  no  part  of  the  truth  as  it  is  revealed  as  the  object  of 
faith.  We  are  bound  to  understand  the  Scriptures  in  their  plain 
historical  sense  ;  and  to  admit  no  philosophy  to  explain  or  modify 
that  sense,  except  the  philosophy  of  the  Bible  itself;  that  is,  those 
facts  and  principles  concerning  the  natui*e  of  God,  the  nature  of 
man,  of  the  world,  and  of  the  relation  between  God  and  the 
world,  which  are  either  asserted  or  plainly  assumed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. To  depart  from  this  principle  is  to  give  up  the  Bible  as  a 
rule  of  faith  ;  and  to  substitute  for  it  the  teachings  of  philosophy. 
That  form  of  Rationalism  which  consists  in  giving  a  philosophical 
explanation  of  the  truths  of  revelation,  or  in  resolving  them  into 
truths  of  the  reason,  is  just  as  certain  in  the  end  to  teach  for  doc- 
trines the  speculations  of  men,  as  the  most  avowed  skepticism. 

After  all,  apart  from  the  Bible,  the  best  antidote  to  all  these 
false  theories  of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  is  such  a  book  as 
Doctor  Schaff's  "  Christ  in  Song."  ^  The  hymns  contained  in  that 
volume  are  of  all  ages  and  from  all  churches.  They  set  forth 
Christ  as  truly  God,  as  truly  man,  as  one  person,  as  the  expiation 
for  our  sins,  as  our  intercessor,  saviour,  and  king,  as  the  supreme 
object  of  love,  as  the  ultimate  ground  of  confidence,  — as  the  all- 
sufficient  portion  of  the  soul.  We  want  no  better  theology  and  no 
better  religion  than  are  set  forth  in  these  hymns.  They  were  in- 
dited by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  sense  that  the  thoughts  and  feelings 
which  they  express,  are  due  to  his  operations  on  the  hearts  of  his 
people. 

1  Chrisii  in  Fong.  Hymns  of  Immanuel:  selected  from  all  Ages,  with  Notes,  by  Philip 
Scbaff,  D.  D.    New  York,  Anson  D.  F.  Randolph  and  Co' ,  1869. 


CHAPTER   X. 

INTERCESSION   OF  CHRIST. 

§  1.    Christ  our  Intercessor. 

Under  the  old  dispensation  the  High  Priest,  after  having  offered 
sacrifices  for  sin  in  the  outer  court,  was  directed,  on  the  day  of 
atonement,  to  take  the  blood  of  the  victims  and  a  censer  with 
burning  incense,  and  to  enter  within  the  veil,  and  there  present 
the  blood  before  God,  sprinkling  it  upon  the  mercy  seat.  In  like 
mannei",  as  we  are  taught  by  the  Apostle,  Christ,  having  offered 
Himself  on  the  cross  as  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins,  has  passed  through 
the  heavens,  there  to  appear  before  God  in  our  behalf.  He  is, 
therefore,  said  to  be  the  minister  of  the  true  tabernacle,  which  the 
Lord  pitched  and  not  man.  His  priestly  office  is  now  exercised  in 
heaven,  where  he  ever  lives  to  intercede  for  us. 

This  work  of  Christ  is  expressed  in  Scripture,  — 

1.  By  saying  that  He  appears  before  God  for  us.  Hebrews  ix. 
24.  The  word  used  is  t/A^avto-^^mt  =  e/x(^avi^€tv  eaurdi' rut.  Christ 
presents  Himself  before  God  as  our  representative.  His  perfect 
manhood,  his  official  character,  and  his  finished  work,  plead  for  us 
before  the  tlirone  of  God.  All  that  the  Son  of  God  as  incarnate 
is,  and  all  that  He  did  on  earth.  He  is,  and  did  for  us ;  so  that 
God  can  regard  us  with  all  the  favour  which  is  due  to  Him.  His 
presence,  therefore,  is  a  perpetual  ajid  prevailing  intercession  with 
God  in  behalf  of  his  people,  and  secures  for  them  all  the  benefits 
of  his  redemption. 

2.  His  intercession  is  expressed  by  saying  that  He  draws  near 
to  God  on  our  behalf.  The  word  used  is  ivrvyxdvcLv,  to  meet  with^ 
to  talk  with.  To  meet,  or  approach  one  for  (y^^^p^  another,  is  to 
intercede  in  his  behalf.  (Romans  viii.  34  ;  Hebrews  vii.  25.)  To 
meet  one  against  (^KaTo.')  another  is  to  intercede  against  him.  (Ro- 
mans xi.  2.)  According  to  the  Scriptures,  and  speaking  after  the 
manner  of  men,  Christ  speaks  to  God  in  our  behalf;  or,  as -it  is 
expressed  in  John  xvii.  9,  He  prays  for  us. 

3.  Clu-ist  is  called  our  Paraclete,  irapdKXr)To<;.  This  word  is 
translated  advocate  in  1  John  ii.  1,  and  comforter  in  John  xiv.  16  ; 


§  2.]  ITS  NATURE.  593 

XV.  26  ;  xvi.  7.  Neither  translation  expresses  its  full  meaning. 
It  signifies  invoked^  called  upon  for  help.  The  Paraclete  is,  there- 
fore, in  the  comprehensive  sense  of  the  word,  a  helper,  whatever 
may  be  the  specific  nature  of  the  aid  afforded.  As,  however,  the 
guilty,  the  ignorant,  the  friendless,  when  arraigned  before  a  tri- 
bunal of  justice,  need  above  all  things  an  advocate  ;  one  who  will 
undertake  their  cause  ;  present  a  plea  in  their  behalf;  and  use  all 
his  influence  to  secure  their  acquittal ;  it  is  in  this  sense  especially 
that  Christ  is  set  forth  as  our  Trapa.KX-qro';.  He  is  our  advocate.  He 
appears  at  the  bar  of  God  for  us.  He  pleads  our  cause.  He  pre- 
sents his  work  of  obedience  and  suffering  as  the  ground  of  our  jus- 
tification. He  exerts  his  influence,  the  influence  of  his  character 
as  the  Son  of  God  in  whom  the  Father  is  ever  well  pleased,  and 
whom  He  heareth  always,  as  well  as  the  influence  due  to  Him  in 
virtue  of  the  covenant  of  redemption,  and  the  perfect  fulfilment  of 
its  conditions,  to  secure  for  his  people  all  the  good  they  need.  It 
is,  therefore,  especially  in  passages  which  speak  of  justification,  and 
of  judicial  process,  that  Christ's  intercession  is  brought  into  view. 
(See  Romans  viii.  34  ;  1  John  ii.  1.) 

§  2.  Its  Nature. 

As  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  intercession,  little  can  be  said.  There 
is  error  in  pressing  the  representations  of  Scripture  too  far  ;  and 
there  is  error  in  explaining  them  away.  This  latter  error  is 
chargeable  on  many  of  the  later  theologians,  who  teach  that  the 
Scriptures  intend,  by  the  intercession  of  Christ,  nothing  more  than 
his  continued  intervention  or  agency  in  the  salvation  of  his  people. 
Man}'  of  the  Lutheran  theologians,  on  the  other  extreme,  err  in 
insisting  that  this  intercession  of  our  Lord  in  our  behalf  in  heaven 
is  vocalis,  verbalis,  et  oralis.  Sounds  and  words  suppose  an  atmos- 
phere and  a  body,  which  is  flesh  and  blood,  which  Paul  says  can- 
not inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  Reformed  theoloo-ians 
abstain  from  these  extremes,  and  consider  it  enough  to  say  that  the 
intercession  of  Christ  includes  —  (1.)  His  appearing  before  God  in 
our  behalf,  as  the  sacrifice  for  our  sins,  as  our  High  Priest,  on  the 
ground  of  whose  work  we  receive  the  remission  of  our  sins,  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  all  needed  good.  (2.)  Defence  against 
the  sentence  of  the  law  and  the  charges  of  Satan,  who  is  the  great 
accuser.  (8.)  His  offering  Himself  as  our  surety,  not  only  that 
the  demands  of  justice  shall  be  shown  to  be  satisfied,  but  that  his 
people  shall  be  obedient  and  faithful.  (4.)  The  oblation  of  the 
persons  of  the  redeemed,  sanctifying  their  prayers,  and  all  their 

VOL.    II.  38 


594  PART  III.     Ch.  X.  —  intercession   OF   CHRIST. 

services,  rendering  tliein  acceptable  to  God,  through  the  savour  of 
his  own  merits. 

§  3.  Its   Objects. 

As  to  the  objects  of  Christ's  intercession,  the  Lutherans  make  a 
distinction  between  his  intercession  as  general  and  special.  He 
intercedes  generally  for  all  men,  and  specially  for  the  elect.  The 
former  is  assumed  on  the  authority  of  Luke  xxiii.  34,  where  Christ 
is  represented  as  praying  for  his  murderers,  saying,  "  Father  for- 
give them ;  for  they  know  not  what  they  do."  It  is  said  to  be 
due  to  the  intercession  of  Christ  that  the  wicked  are  not  imme- 
diately cut  off,  that  they  have  the  Gospel  preached  to  them,  and 
every  opportunity  afforded  them  of  returning  unto  God.  That 
there  is,  however,  an  intercession  of  which  the  people  of  Christ 
alone  are  objects,  Lutherans  themselves  are  constrained  to  admit, 
as  our  Lord  Himself  says :  "  I  pray  not  for  the  world,  but  for 
them  which  thou  hast  given  me."  (John  xvii.  9,  20.)  So  far  as 
the  intercession  of  Christ  is  part  of  his  official  work  as  the  High 
Priest  of  our  profession.  He  intercedes  only  for  those  who  accept 
Him  as  their  priest,  and  whom  He  represents  in  the  covenant  of 
redemption.  This  follows  from  the  nature  of  his  office  as  Priest, 
from  his  own  express  declaration,  and  from  the  fact  that  his  inter- 
cession is  certainly  efficacious.  Him  the  Father  heareth  always. 
If  He  interceded  for  all,  all  would  certainly  be  saved. 

§  4.  Intercession  of  Saints. 

There  is  but  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  and  but  one 
High  Priest  through  whom  we  draw  near  to  God.  And  as  in- 
tercession is  a  priestly  function,  it  follows  that  Christ  is  our  only 
intercessor.  But  as  there  is  a  sense  in  which  all  believers  are 
kings  and  priests  unto  God,  which  is  consistent  with  Christ's  being 
our  only  king  and  priest ;  so  there  is  a  sense  in  which  one  believer 
may  intercede  for  another,  which  is  not  inconsistent  with  Christ's 
being  our  only  intercessor.  By  intercession  in  the  case  of  believers 
is  only  meant  that  one  child  of  God  may  pray  for  another  or  for  all 
men.  To  intercede  is  in  this  sense  merely  to  pray  for.  But  in 
the  case  of  Christ  it  expresses  an  official  act,  which  none  who  does 
not  fill  his  office  can  perform.  As  under  the  old  economy  one 
Israelite  could  pray  for  his  brethren,  but  on\y  the  High  Priest 
could  enter  within  the  veil  and  officially  interpose  in  behalf  of  the 
people  ;  so  now,  although  we  may  pray,  one  for  another,  Christ 
only  can  appear  as  a  priest  before  God  in  our  behalf  and  plead  his 


§4.]  INTERCESSION   OF   SAINTS.  595 

merits  as  the  ground  on  which  his  prayers  for  his  people  should  be 
answered. 

Protestants  object  to  the  intercession  of  saints  as  taught  and 
practised  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 

1.  Because  it  supposes  a  class  of  beings  who  do  not  exist ;  that 
is,  of  canonized  departed  spirits.  It  is  only  those  who,  with  the 
angels,  have  been  officially  declared  by  the  Church,  on  account  of 
their  merits,  to  be  now  in  heaven,  who  are  regarded  as  interces- 
sors. This,  however,  is  an  unauthorized  assumption  on  the  part 
of  the  Church.  It  has  no  prerogative  to  enable  it  thus  to  decide, 
and  to  enroll  whom  it  will  among  glorified  spirits.  Often  those 
thus  dignified  have  been  real  enemies  of  God,  and  persecutors  of 
his  people. 

2.  It  leads  to  practical  idolatry.  Idolatry  is  the  ascription  of 
divine  attributes  to  a  creature.  In  the  popular  mind  the  saints, 
and  especially  the  Virgin  Mary,  are  regarded  as  omnipresent ;  able 
at  all  times  and  in  all  places,  to  hear  the  prayers  addressed  to 
them,  and  to  relieve  the  wants  of  their  worshippers. 

3.  It  is  derogatory  to  Chi-ist.  As  He  is  the  only  and  sufficient 
mediator  between  God  and  man,  and  as  He  is  ever  willing  to  hear 
and  answer  the  prayers  of  his  people,  it  supposes  some  deficiency 
in  Him,  if  we  need  other  mediators  to  approach  God  in  our  be- 
half. 

4.  It  moreover  is  contrary  to  Scripture,  inasmuch  as  the  saints 
are  assumed  to  prevail  with  God  on  account  of  their  personal 
merits.  Such  merit  no  human  being  has  before  God.  No  man 
has  any  merit  to  plead  for  his  own  salvation,  much  less  for  the  sal- 
vation of  others. 

5.  The  practice  is  superstitious  and  degrading.  Superstition  is 
belief  without  evidence.  Tiie  practice  of  the  invocation  of  saints 
is  fotmded  on  a  belief  which  has  no  support  from  Scripture.  It  is 
calling  upon  imaginary  helpers.  It  degrades  men  by  turning  them 
from  the  Creator  to  the  creature,  by  leading  them  to  put  their  trust 
in  an  arm  of  flesh,  instead  of  in  the  power  of  Chi'ist.  It,  there- 
fore, turns  away  the  hearts  and  confidence  of  the  people  from  Him 
to  those  who  can  neither  hear  nor  save. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

KINGLY  OFFICE   OF   CHRIST. 

§  1.   The  Church  Grod^s  Kingdom. 

God  as  the  creator  and  preserver  of  the  universe,  and  as  infinite 
in  his  being  and  perfections,  is,  in  virtue  of  his  nature,  the  absolute 
sovereign  of  all  his  creatures.  This  sovereignty  He  exercises  over 
the  material  world  by  his  wisdom  and  power,  and  over  rational 
beings  as  a  moral  ruler.  From  this  rightful  authority  of  God,  our 
race  revolted,  and  thereby  became  a  part  of  the  kingdom  of  dark- 
ness of  which  Satan  is  the  head.  To  this  kingdom  the  mass  of 
mankind  has  ever  since  belonged.  But  God,  in  his  grace  and 
mercy,  determined  to  deliver  men  from  the  consequences  of  their 
apostasy.  He  not  only  announced  the  coming  of  a  Redeemer  who 
should  destroy  the  power  of  Satan,  but  He  at  once  inaugurated  an 
antao-onistic  kingdom,  consisting  of  men  chosen  out  of  the  world, 
and  through  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost  restored  to  their  alle- 
giance. Until  the  time  of  Abraham  this  kingdom  does  not  appear 
to  have  had  any  visible  organization  apart  from  the  families  of  the 
people  of  God.  Every  pious  household  was  a  church  of  which  the 
parent  was  the  priest. 

To  prevent  the  universal  spread  of  idolatry,  to  preserve  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth,  to  gather  in  his  elect,  and  to  prepai'e  the 
way  for  the  coming  of  the  promised  Redeemer,  God  entered  into 
covenant  with  the  father  of  the  faithful  and  with  his  descendants 
throuo-h  Isaac,  constitutino-  them  his  visible  kino;dom,  and  makinor 
them  the  depositaries  and  guardians  of  his  supernatural  revelations. 
In  this  covenant  He  promised  eternal  life  upon  condition  of  faith 
in  Him  that  was  to  come. 

When  Moses  led  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt,  they  were  made  a 
theocracy  so  constituted  in  its  officers,  in  its  institutions,  and  in  its 
services,  as  not  only  to  preserve  alive  the  knowledge  of  God's  pur- 
pose and  plan  of  salvation,  but  also  to  set  forth  the  character, 
offices,  and  work  of  the  promised  seed  of  Abraham  in  whom  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed. 


§2.]  CHRIST  IS. TRULY  A  KING.  597 

The  kingdom  of  God,  therefore,  as  consisting  of  those  who  ac- 
knowledge, worship,  love,  and  obey  Jehovah  as  the  only  living  and 
true  God,  has  existed  in  our  world  ever  since  the  fall  of  Adam.  It 
has  ever  been  the  light  and  life  of  the  world.  It  is  the  salt  by  which 
it  is  preserved.  It  is  the  leaven  by  which  it  is  ultimately  to  be 
pervaded.  To  gather  his  people  into  this  kingdom,  and  to  carry  it 
on  to  its  consummation,  is  the  end  of  all  God's  dispensations,  and 
the  purpose  for  which  his  eternal  Son  assumed  our  nature.  He 
was  born  to  be  a  king.  To  this  end  He  lived  and  died  and  rose 
again,  that  He  might  be  Lord  of  all  those  given  to  Him  by  the 
Father. 

§  2.    Christ  is  truly  a  King. 

Although  the  kingdom  of  God  had  existed  from  the  beginning, 
yet  as  everything  therewith  connected  before  the  Advent  was 
merely  preparatory,  the  Scriptures  constantly  speak  of  the  Mes- 
siah as  a  king  who  was  to  set  up  a  kingdom  into  which  in  the  end 
all  other  kingdoms  were  to  be  merged.  The  most  familiar  desig- 
nation applied  to  Him  in  the  Scriptures  is  Lord.  But  Lord  means 
proprietor  and  ruler;  and  when  used  of  God  or  Christ,  it  means 
absolute  proprietor  and  sovereign  ruler.  Apart  from  Christ's  right 
in  us  and  sovereignty  over  us  as  God,  He  as  the  God-man  is  our 
Lord.  We  belong  to  Him  by  the  purchase  of  his  blood,  and  God 
has  set  Him  as  King  on  his  holy  hill  of  Zion. 

In  the  Book  of  Genesis  the  Messiah  is  set  forth  as  the  Shiloh  to 
whom  is  to  be  the  gathering  of  the  people.  In  reference  to  Him 
it  was  said  in  Numbers  xxiv.  17,  "  There  shall  come  a  Star  out  of 
Jacob  ;  and  a  Sceptre  shall  rise  out  of  Israel.'  In  2  Samuel  vii. 
16,  we  have  the  record  of  God's  formal  covenant  with  David, 
"  Thine  house  and  thy  kingdom  shall  be  established  forever  be- 
fore thee  :  thy  throne  shall  be  established  forever."  In  fulfilment 
of  that  promise  Isaiah  predicted  that  a  virgin  should  bear  a  son  and 
call  his  name  Immanuel,  on  whose  shoulder  should  be  the  govern- 
ment, whose  name  should  be  called  "  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the 
Mighty  God,  the  Everlasting  Father,  the  Prince  of  Peace.  Of 
the  increase  of  his  government  and  peace  there  shall  be  no  end, 
upon  the  throne  of  David,  and  upon  his  kingdom,  to  order  it,  and 
to  establish  it  with  judgment  and  with  justice  from  henceforth 
even  forever.  The  zeal  of  the  Lord  of  hosts  will  perform  this." 
(Isaiah  ix.  6,  7.)  In  the  second  Psalm  God  declares  in  reference 
to  the  Messiah,  I  have  "  set  my  king  upon  my  holy  hill  of  Zion. 
....  Ask  of  me  and  I  shall  give  thee  the  heathen  for  thine  in- 
heritance, and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  for  thy  possession. 


598      PART  III.     Ch.   XI.  — kingly   OFFICE   OF    CHRIST. 

Thou  shalt  break  them  with  a  rod  of  iron  ;  thou  shalt  dash  them  in 
pieces  hke  a  potter's  vessel."  The  whole  of  the  45th,  72d,  and 
110th  Psalms  is  devoted  to  the  exhibition  of  the  Messiah  in  his 
character  as  king.  In  Daniel  vii.  13,  14,  it  is  said,  "  One  like  the 
Son  of  Man  came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and  came  to  the 
Ancient  of  days,  and  they  brought  him  near  before  him.  And 
there  was  given  him  dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all 
people,  nations,  and  languages,  should  serve  him ;  his  dominion  is 
an  everlasting  dominion,  which  shall  not  j)ass  away,  and  his  king- 
dom that  which  shall  not  be  destroyed."  The  prophet  Micah  v.  2, 
said,  "  Thou,  Bethlehem,  Ephratah,  though  thou  be  little  among 
the  thousands  of  Judah,  yet  out  of  thee  shall  he  come  forth  unto 
me  that  is  to  be  ruler  in  Israel ;  whose  goings  forth  have  been  from 
of  old,  from  everlasting."  After  the  captivity  the  people  were 
cheered  with  the  hope  that  the  promised  king  was  soon  to  appear. 
"  Rejoice  greatly,  O  daughter  of  Zion  ;  shout,  O  daughter  of  Jeru- 
salem ;  Behold,  thy  King  cometh  unto  thee  ;  he  is  just,  and  hav- 
ing salvation  ;  lowly,  and  riding  upon  an  ass,  and  upon  a  colt  the 
foal  of  an  ass."  (Zech.  ix.  9.)  This  is  the  mode  of  representa- 
tion which  pervades  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  As  the  priest- 
hood, and  sacrifices,  and  prophets  of  the  former  dispensation  were 
typical  of  the  prophetic  and  priestly  offices  of  Christ,  so  the  kings 
of  Israel  were  typical  of  his  kingly  office,  and  so  the  national  the- 
ocracy of  the  Mosaic  economy  was  typical  of  the  spiritual  theoc- 
racy of  the  Messianic  period. 

In  the  New  Testament  Christ  is  set  forth  as  a  king,  in  harmony 
with  the  predictions  which  foretold  his  advent.  The  Angel  Gabriel, 
in  announcing  to  the  Virgin  Mary  the  approaching  birth  of  the 
Messiah  said,  "  Thou  shalt  conceive  in  thy  womb,  and  bring  forth 
a  son,  and  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus.  He  shall  be  great,  and  shall 
be  called  the  Son  of  the  Highest :  and  the  Lord  God  shall  give 
unto  him  the  throne  of  his  father  David:  And  he  shall  reign  over 
the  house  of  Jacob  forever  ;  and  of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no 
end."  (Luke  i.  31-33.)  John  the  Baptist,  the  forerunner  of 
Christ,  prepared  the  people  for  iiis  coming,  saying,  "  Repent  ye  : 
for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  (Matt.  iii.  2.)  And  our 
Lord  himself,  when  He  entered  upon  his  personal  ministry,  went 
everywhere  preaching  "the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God." 
(Mark  i.  14.)  Much  of  his  teaching  was  devoted  to  setting  forth 
the  nature  of  the  kingdom  which  He  came  to  establish. 

Nothing,  therefore,  is  more  certain,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
than  that  Christ  is  a  king ;  and  consequently,  if  we  would  retain 


§3.]  NATURE   OF   CHRIST'S  KINGDOM.  599 

the  truth  concerning  Hhii  and  liis  work,  He  must  be  so  regarded 
in  our  theology  and  religion. 

§  3.  Nature  of  Christ'' s  Kingdom. 

Although  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth  was  set  up  immediately 
after  the  fall,  yet  as  the  Messiah  was  to  come  to  make  all  things 
new,  and  to  take  into  his  hands  as  the  Theanthropos  the  adminis- 
tration of  this  kingdom,  the  Old  Testament  predicted,  and  the  New 
Testament  announces,  the  establishment  of  a  new  kingdom  as  con- 
sequent on  his  advent. 

The  word  /3ao-iAeta  is  used  in  Scripture  in  three  senses. 
(1.)  For  royal  authority  or  dominion  ;  such  dominion  as  it  is  the 
prerogative  of  a  king  to  exercise.  (2.)  For  those  who  are  subject 
to  that  authority.  Among  men  any  community,  or  commonwealth, 
or  territory  subject  to  a  king,  constitutes  his  kingdom.  And  in 
the  New  Testament,  those  who  acknowledge  Christ  as  their  king 
constitute  his  kingdom.  (3.)  The  word  is  used  metonymically  for 
the  effects  of  the  exercise  of  royal  authority.  It  is  to  be  understood 
in  the  first  of  these  senses  in  all  those  cases  in  which  a  kingdom  or 
dominion  is  said  to  be  given  to  Christ ;  or  when  we  pray.  Thy  king- 
dom come,  or  when  it  is  said,  Of  his  kingdom  there  is  no  end. 
It  is  used  in  the  second  sense  when  men  are  said  to  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  Christ,  or  to  be  cast  out  of  it,  or  when  the  char- 
acter of  those  is  described  who  are  to  constitute  that  kingdom. 
And  it  is  used  in  the  third  sense  when  men  are  said  to  inherit,  to 
see  (or  enjoy),  to  seek,  and  to  value  more  than  hid  treasure,  the 
kingdom  of  God.  Hence  also  the  kingdom  of  God  is  said  to  con- 
sist in  righteousness,  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  Such  are 
the  eifects  of  the  reign  of  Christ. 

This  kingdom  is  called  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  or  of  the  Son  of 
God,  because  administered  by  Him.  The  royal  authority  is  vested 
in  Him.  It  is  called  the  kingdom  of  God,  because  Christ  is  God, 
and  because  it  is  the  kingdom  which  God  was  to  establish  on  earth 
in  distinction  from  the  kingdoms  of  men.  It  is  called  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  because  its  king  dwells  in  lieaven,  because  it  is  spiritual 
and  heavenly,  and  because  it  is  to  be  consummated  in  heaven. 
Various  as  are  the  applications  and  uses  of  these  designations  in 
the  New  Testament,  they  are  included  under  the  general  idea  of 
the  Messianic  kingdom  ;  that  kingdom  which  the  Messiah  came 
into  the  world  to  establish.  That  kingdom,  however,  is  presented 
in  different  aspects,  or,  in  other  words,  Christ  exercises  his  royal 
authority,  so  to  speak,  in  different  spheres. 


600     PART  m.    Ch.  XI.— kingly  OFFICE  OF  CHRIST. 

Christ''^  Dominion  over  the  Universe. 

Christ  has  what  theologians  are  accustomed  to  call  his  king- 
dom of  power.  As  Theanthropos  and  as  Mediator,  all  power 
in  heaven  and  upon  earth  has  been  committed  to  his  hands. 
(Matt,  xxviii.  18.)  In  Psalm  viii.  6,  it  is  declared  to  be  the  pur- 
l)()se  of  God  that  all  things  sliould  be  put  under  the  feet  of  man. 
This  purpose,  we  are  taught  by  the  Apostle,  God  fulfilled  in  the 
exaltation  of  Christ,  "  when  he  raised  him  from  the  dead,  and  set 
him  at  his  own  right  hand  in  the  heavenly  places,  far  above  all 
principality,  and  power,  and  might,  and  dominion,  and  every  name 
that  is  named,  not  only  in  this  world,  but  also  in  that  which  is 
to  come  ;  and  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet,  and  gave  him 
to  be  the  head  ov^er  all  things  to  the  church."  (Eph.  i.  20-22.) 
In  1  Corinthians  xv.  27,  the  argument  is  pushed  to  its  utmost  ex- 
treme. When  all  things  are  said  to  be  put  under  the  feet  of  Christ, 
nothing  is  to  be  excepted  from  this  subjection,  except  Him  "  which 
did  put  all  things  under  him."  And  in  Hebrews  ii.  8,  it  is  said, 
"  In  that  he  put  all  (ra  -rravTa,  the  universe)  in  subjection  under 
him,  he  left  nothing  that  is  not  put  under  him."  The  same  uni- 
versality of  dominion  is  implied  in  Christ's  sitting  at  the  right  hand 
of  God.  As  this  session  on  the  throne  of  God  involves  equality 
with  God  in  glory  and  dominion,  it  cannot  be  said  of  any  creature. 
And  as  it  is  said  of  Christ  it  proves  that  Christ  is  a  divine  person, 
and  is  invested  with  all  the  power  and  authority  of  God.  This  is 
the  Apostle's  argument  in  Hebrews  i.  13.  "  To  which  of  the 
angels  (to  what  created  being)  said  he  at  any  time.  Sit  on  my 
right  hand?"  The  Apostle  says  to  the  Philippians,  that  Him, 
who  though  equal  with  God  was  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  "  God 
hath  highly  exalted,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every 
name  :  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things 
in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth." 
(Phil.  ii.  9,  10.)  This  is  a  perfectly  exhaustive  statement.  All 
in  heaven,  all  in  earth,  and  all  under  the  earth,  include  all  rational 
creatures.  The  person  to  whom  they  are  to  bow  the  knee  is 
Jesus,  not  the  Logos,  but  the  God-man.  And  the  acknowledgment 
which  they  are  to  make  is,  that  He  is  Lord,  i.  e.,  their  Lord,  their 
absolute  proprietor  and  Sovereign.  It  is  in  this  sense  also,  that 
the  Apostle  says  (Heb.  i.  2),  that  God  hath  appointed  the  Son 
heir  of  all  things.  It  is  in  virtue  of  this  dominion  over  the  uni- 
verse  that  Christ  is  called  Lord  of  lords  and  King  of  kings,  i.  e., 
the  Sovereign  over  all  other  sovereigns  in  heaven  and  on  earth. 


§3.]  NATURE   OF   CHRIST'S  KINGDOM.  601 

This  universal  authority  is  exercised  in  a  providential  control, 
and  for  the  benefit  of  his  Churcli.  He  employs  the  angels  as 
ministering  spirits,  to  minister  to  the  heirs  of  salvation.  He  con- 
trols and  restrains  the  principalities,  powers,  world-rulers,  and  spirits 
of  wickedness.  (Eph.  vi.  12.)  He  overrules  all  the  affairs  of  na- 
tions and  of  individuals  to  the  same  end.  He  directs  all  events 
concerning  his  people  severally  and  his  Church  collectively.  Paul 
constantly  recognized  this  providential  control  of  Christ  as  direct- 
ing all  his  steps.  Under  the  present  dispensation,  therefore,  Christ 
is  the  God  of  providence.  It  is  in  and  through  and  by  Him  that 
the  universe  is  governed.  This  dominion  or  kingdom  is  to  last 
until  its  object  is  accomplished,  i.  e.,  until  all  his  enemies,  all  forms 
of  evil,  and  even  death  itself  is  subdued.  Then  this  kingdom, 
this  mediatorial  government  of  the  universe,  is  to  be  given  up.  (1 
Cor.  XV.  24.) 

Christ's  Spiritual  Kingdom. 

But  besides  this  kingdom  of  power,  Christ  has  a  kingdom  of 
grace.  This  also  is  exhibited  under  two  aspects.  It  includes  the 
relation  in  which  He  stands  to  his  true  people  individually  and  col- 
lectively (the  invisible  Church)  ;  and  the  relation  He  sustains  to 
the  visible  Church,  or  the  body  of  his  professing  people. 

He  is  the  king  of  every  believing  soul.  He  translates  it  from 
the  kingdom  of  darkness.  He  brings  it  into  subjection  to  Himself. 
He  rules  in  and  reigns  over  it.  Every  believer  recognizes  Christ 
as  his  absolute  Sovereign  ;  Lord  of  his  inward,  as  well  as  of  his  out- 
ward, life.  He  yields  to  Him  the  entire  subjection  of  the  reason, 
of  the  conscience,  and  of  the  heart.  He  makes  Him  the  object  of 
reverence,  love,  and  obedience.  In  Him  he  trusts  for  protection 
from  all  enemies,  seen  and  unseen.  On  Him  he  relies  for  help  in 
every  emergency,  and  for  final  triumph.  On  Him  the  loyalty  of 
the  believer  terminates.  To  acquit  himself  as  a  good  soldier  of 
Jesus  Christ,  to  spend  and  be  spent  in  his  service  and  in  the  pro- 
motion of  his  kingdom,  becomes  the  governing  purpose  of  his  life. 

The  terms  of  admission  into  this  spiritual  kingdom  are  faith 
and  repentance  (John  iii.  3,  5),  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water 
and  of  the  Spirit  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  "  or, 
conversion  (Matt,  xviii.  3),  "  Except  ye  be  converted,  and  be- 
come as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven ;  "  purity  of  life  (1  Cor.  vi.  9),  "  The  unrighteous  shall 
not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,"  nor  "  extortioners  ;  "  nor  such 
as  indulge  in  "  adultery,  fornication,  uncleanness,  lasciviousness. 


602      PART  in.     Ch.   XL  — kingly   OFFICE   OF   CHRIST. 

idolatry,  witchcraft,  hatred,  variance,  emulations,  wrath,  strife, 
seditions,  heresies,  envyings,  murders,  drunkenness,  revellings,  and 
such  like  ;  of  which,"  the  Apostle  says,  "  I  tell  you  before,  as 
I  have  also  told  you  in  time  past,  that  they  which  do  such  things 
shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God."     (Gal.  v.  19-21.) 

On  the  other  hand,  we  are  taught  that  no  external  profession 
secures  admission  into  this  kingdom.  "  Not  every  one  that  saith 
unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
(Matt.  vii.  21.)  Nor  any  punctiliousness  in  the  performance  of 
rites  and  ceremonies,  "  Except  your  righteousness  shall  exceed 
the  righteousness  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  case 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  (Matt.  v.  20.)  "  He  is  not 
a  Jew,  which  is  one  outwardly  ;  neither  is  that  circumcision, 
which  is  outward  in  the  flesh."  (Rom.  ii.  28.)  "  For  in  Jesus 
Christ  neither  circumcision  availeth  anything,  nor  uncircumcision." 
(Gal.  V.  6.)  "Baptism  doth  also  now  save  us;  not  the  putting 
away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
towards  God."  (1  Pet.  iii.  21.)  Nor  membership  in  any  exter- 
nal community,  "  Think  not  to  say  within  yourselves.  We  have 
Abraham  to  our  father."  (Matt.  iii.  9.)  "  They  are  not  all  Israel, 
which  are  of  Israel."  (Rom.  ix.  6.)  The  kingdom  of  Christ,  in 
this  aspect  of  it,  is  a  purely  spiritual  community,  consisting  of  those 
truly  and  inwardly  his  people. 

The  laws  of  this  kingdom  require  first  and  above  all,  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ ;  the  sincere  belief  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God  and  the 
Saviour  of  the  world,  and  cordial  submission  to  Him  and  trust  in 
Him  as  our  prophet,  priest,  and  king.  With  this  faith  is  united 
supreme  love.  "  He  that  loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me, 
is  not  worthy  of  me  :  and  he   that  loveth  son  or  daughter  more 

than  me,  is  not  worthy  of  me He   that  findeth   his  life, 

shall  lose  it ;  and  he  that  loseth  his  life  for  my  sake  shall  find 
it."  (Matt.  X.  37,  39.)  "  If  any  man  come  to  me,  and  hate  not 
his  father,  and  mother,  and  wife,  and  children,  and  brethren,  and 
sisters,  yea,  and  his  own  life  also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple." 
(Luke  xiv.  26.)  "  If  any  man  love  not  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
let  him  be  anathema  maranatha."  (1  Cor.  xvi.  22.)  With  this 
supreme  love  are  to  be  connected  all  the  other  religious  affections. 
Christians  are  the  worshippers  of  Christ.  (1  Cor.  i.  2.)  Christ 
requires  his  disciples  to  honour  Him  as  they  honour  the  Father. 
(John  V.  23.)  They  are  to  believe  in  Him  (put  the  same  con- 
fidence in  Him),  as  they  do  in  God.  (John  xiv.  1.)  It  is  the 
same    offence    under  the  new  dispensation    to  refuse  to  worship 


§  3.]  NATURE   OF   CHRIST'S  KINGDOM.  603 

Christ  as  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  that  it  was  nnder  the  old 
economy  to  refuse  to  worship  Jehovah  as  the  only  living  and 
true  God.  In  both  cases  it  was  a  violation  of  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  kingdom,  and  of  necessity  worked  excision  from  God's 
people.  But  if  we  are  to  recognize  Christ  as  Thomas  did  (John 
XX.  28),  as  our  Lord  and  our  God,  then  of  course  we  are  bound 
not  only  to  worship,  but  to  obey  Him.  We  stand  to  Him  in  the 
same  relation  that  a  slave  does  to  his  master,  except  that  our  sub- 
jection to  Him  is  voluntary  and  joyful.  We  belong  to  Him,  not 
only  as  the  Creator,  being  his  creatures,  but  also  as  the  Thean- 
thropos,  being  purchased  by  his  blood.  (1  Cor.  vi.  19,  20.)  His 
will,  and  not  our  own,  must  govern  our  conduct,  and  determine 
the  use  we  make  of  our  powers.  All  we  gain,  whether  of  knowl- 
edge, wealth,  or  influence,  is  his.  He,  and  not  we  ourselves,  is 
the  object  or  end  of  our  living.  It  is  Christ  for  believers  to 
live.  His  glory  and  the  advancement  of  his  kingdom,  are  the  only 
legitimate  objects  to  which  they  can  devote  their  powers  or  re- 
sources ;  the  only  ends  consistent  with  their  relation  to  Christ,  and 
the  full  enjoyment  of  the  blessedness  which  membership  in  his 
kingdom  secures. 

The  laws  of  the  kingdom  moreover  require  not  only  these  duties 
to  Christ,  but  that  his  people  should  be  holy  in  heart  and  life. 
They  must  be  poor  in  spirit ;  meek ;  merciful ;  peace-makers  ;  long- 
suffering  ;  ready  to  forgive ;  disinterested,  not  seeking  their  own ; 
bearing  all  things ;  believing  all  things ;  and  hoping  all  things. 
They  are  forbidden  to  be  avaricious,  or  covetous,  or  proud,  or 
worldly  minded.  In  one  word,  they  are  required  to  be  like  Christ, 
in  disposition,  character,  and  conduct. 

The  special  law  of  Christ's  kingdom  is  that  its  members  should 
love  one  another,  not  only  with  the  love  of  complacency  and 
delight,  but  with  brotherly  love.  A  love  which  leads  to  the  recog- 
nition of  all  Christians  as  brethren,  belonging  to  the  same  family, 
entitled  to  the  same  privileges  and  blessings;  and  which  prompts  to 
and  secures  ministering  to  their  necessities,  so  that  there  be  no  lack. 
This  law  is  laid  down  at  length  by  the  Apostle  in  2  Corinthians 
viii.  The  law  of  the  kingdom  is,  that  every  man  should  labour 
to  the  extent  of  his  ability  to  supply  his  own  wants  and  the  wants 
of  those  dependent  on  him  ;  for  "  if  any  would  not  work  neither 
should  he  eat"  (2  Thess.  iii.  10)  ;  but  all  deficiency  which  labour 
cannot  supply  is  to  be  supplied  by  those  having  the  ability.  "  Whoso 
hath  this  world's  good,  and  seeth  his  brother  have  need,  and 
shutteth  up  his  bowels  of  compassion  from  him,  how  dwelleth  the 


604      PART  ni.     Ch.  XL— kingly   OFFICE  OF   CHRIST. 

love  of  God  in  him  ?  "  (1  John  iii.  17.)  In  praying,  therefore, 
that  the  kingdom  of  God  may  come,  we  pray,  among  other  things, 
that  all  men  may  recognize  Christ  as  their  king,  invested  with 
divine  majesty  and  authority,  and  that  they  should  all  be  like  Him 
in  cliaracter  and  conduct. 

This  kingdom  of  Christ  over  all  his  people  is  exercised  not  only 
by  his  power  in  their  protection  and  direction,  but  especially  by 
his  Word  and  Spirit,  through  which  and  by  whom  He  reigns  in 
and  rules  over  them. 

This  kingdom  of  Christ  is  everlasting.  That  is,  the  relation 
which  believers  sustain  to  Christ  on  earth  they  will  sustain  to  Him 
forever. 

Chrisfs  Visible  Kingdom. 

As  religion  is  essentially  spiritual,  an  inward  state,  the  kingdom 
of  Christ  as  consisting  of  the  truly  regenerated,  is  not  a  visible 
body,  except  so  far  as  goodness  renders  itself  visible  by  its  outward 
manifestations.  Nevertheless  as  Christ  has  enjoined  upon  his  people 
duties  which  render  it  necessary  that  they  should  organize  them- 
selves in  an  external  society,  it  follows  that  there  is  and  must  be  a 
visible  kingdom  of  Christ  in  the  world.  Christians  are  required  to 
associate  for  public  worship,  for  the  admission  and  exclusion  of 
members,  for  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  for  the  mainte- 
nance and  propagation  of  the  truth.  They  therefore  form  them- 
selves into  churches,  and  collectively  constitute  the  visible  kingdom 
of  Christ  on  earth,  consisting  of  all  who  profess  the  true  religion, 
together  with  their  children. 

Nature  of  this  Kingdom. 

First,  it  is  spiritual.  That  is,  it  is  not  of  this  world.  It  is  not  anal- 
ogous to  the  other  kingdoms  which  existed,  or  do  still  exist  among 
men.  It  has  a  different  origin  and  a  different  end.  Human  king- 
doms are  organized  among  men,  under  the  providential  government 
of  God,  for  the  promotion  of  the  temporal  well-being  of  society. 
The  kingdom  of  Christ  was  organized  immediately  by  God,  for  the 
promotion  of  religious  objects.  It  is  spiritual,  or  not  of  this  world, 
moreover,  because  it  has  no  power  over  the  lives,  liberty,  or  prop- 
erty of  its  members  ;  and  because  all  secular  matters  lie  beyond  its 
jurisdiction.  Its  prerogative  is  simply  to  declare  the  truth  of  God 
as  revealed  in  his  Word  and  to  require  that  the  truth  should  be 
professed  and  obeyed  by  all  under  its  jurisdiction.  It  can  decide  no 
question  of  politics  or  science  which  is  not  decided  in  the  Bible.  The 
kingdom  of  Christ,  under  the  present  dispensation,  therefore,  is  not 


§  3.]  NATURE   OF  CHRIST'S  KINGDOM.  605 

worldly  even  in  the  sense  in  which  the  ancient  theocracy  was  of 
this  world.  The  latter  organized  the  Hebrews  as  a  nation,  and 
directed  all  their  municipal  and  national,  as  well  as  their  social  and 
religious  affairs.  It,  therefore,  could  not  coexist  in  time  and 
place  with  any  other  national  organization.  The  kingdom  of  Christ 
being  designed  to  embrace  all  other  kingdoms,  can  exist  under  all 
forms  of  civil  government  without  interfering  with  any.  It  was 
especially  in  this  view  that  Christ  declared  that  his  kingdom  was  not 
of  this  world.  His  immediate  design  was  to  vindicate  his  claim  to 
be  a  king,  from  the  charge  that  such  claim  was  incompatible  with 
the  authority  of  the  civil  magistrate  or  of  the  Roman  emperor.  He 
intended  to  say  that  his  kingdom  was  of  such  a  nature  that  it 
necessitated  no  collision  with  the  legitimate  authority  of  any  civil 
government.  It  belonged  to  a  different,  sphere.  It  took  cogni- 
zance of  things  which  lie  beyond  the  province  of  secular  power ; 
and  it  left  untouched  all  that  belongs  peculiarly  to  civil  rulers. 
Christ,  therefore,  could  be  recognized  and  obeyed  as  king  by  those 
who  continued  to  render  unto  Cassar  the  things  which  were  Caesar's. 
Every  form  or  claim  of  the  Church,  therefore,  which  is  incompat- 
ible with  the  legitimate  authority  of  the  State,  is  inconsistent  with 
the  nature  of  Christ's  kingdom  as  declared  by  Himself. 

Secondly,  this  kingdom  of  Christ  is  catholic  or  universal.  It 
embraces  all  who  profess  the  true  religion.  It  is  confined  to  no 
one  organization  ;  but  includes  them  all ;  because  all  are  under  the 
authority  of  Christ  and  subject  to  the  laws  which  He  has  laid  down 
in  his  Word.  As  all  Christians  are  included  in  the  kingdom  of 
Christ,  it  is  the  duty  of  all  to  recognize  each  other  as  belonging  to 
one  great  commonwealth,  and  as  subjects  of  the  same  sovereign. 

Thirdly,  this  form  of  Christ's  kingdom  is  temporaiy.  It  is  to  be 
merged  into  a  higher  form  when  He  shall  come  the  second  time 
without  sin  unto  salvation.  As  an  external  organization  it  is  de- 
signed to  answer  certain  ends,  and  will  cease  when  those  ends  are 
accomplished. 

Fourthly,  the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  not  a  democracy,  nor  an 
aristocracy,  but  truly  a  kingdom  of  which  Christ  is  absolute  sov- 
ereign.    This  involves  the  denial, — 

1.  That  the  State  has  any  authority  to  make  laws  to  determine 
the  faith,  to  regulate  the  worship,  or  to  administer  the  discipline 
of  the  Church.     It  can  neither  appoint  nor  depose  its  officers. 

2.  It  denies  that  any  civil  officer  as  such,  or  in  virtue  of  his 
office,  has  any  authority  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ ;  much  less  can 
any  such  officer  be  the  head  of  the  Church. 


606     PART  III.     Ch.   XL  — kingly   OFFICE   OF   CHRIST. 

3.  It  denies  that  Church  power  vests  ultimately  in  the  people,  or 
in  the  clergy.  All  their  power  is  purely  ministerial.  It  is  derived 
from  Christ,  and  is  exercised  by  others  in  his  name,  and  according 
to  the  rules  laid  down  in  his  Word.  How  far  the  Church  has  dis- 
cretionary power  in  matters  of  detail  is  a  disputed  point.  By  some 
all  such  discretion  is  denied.  They  maintain  that  everything  con- 
cerning the  organization,  officers,  and  modes  of  action  of  the  Church 
is  as  minutely  laid  down  in  the  New  Testament  as  the  curtains, 
tassels,  and  implements  of  the  tabernacle  are  detailed  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Others  hold  that  while  certain  principles  on  this  sub- 
ject are  laid  down  in  Scripture,  considerable  latitude  is  allowed  as 
to  the  means  and  manner  in  which  the  Church  may  carry  them 
out  in  the  exercise  of  her  functions.  This  latter  view  has  always 
been  practically  adopted.  Even  the  Apostolical  Churches  were  not 
all  organized  precisely  in  the  same  way.  The  presence  of  an 
Apostle,  or  of  a  man  clothed  with  apostolical  authority,  as  in  the 
case  of  James  in  Jerusalem,  necessarily  gave  to  a  Church  a  form 
■which  other  churches  where  no  Apostle  permanently  resided  could 
not  have.  Some  had  deaconesses,  others  had  not.  So  all  churches 
in  every  age  and  wherever  they  have  existed,  have  felt  at  liberty 
to  modify  their  organization  and  modes  of  action  so  as  to  suit  them 
to  their  peculiar  circumstances.  All  such  modifications  are  mat- 
ters of  indifference.  They  cannot  be  made  to  bind  the  conscience, 
nor  can  they  be  rendered  conditions  of  Christian  or  ecclesiastical 
fellowship. 

As  Christ  is  the  only  head  of  the  Church  it  follows  that  its  alle- 
giance is  to  Him,  and  that  whenever  those  out  of  the  Church 
undertake  to  reo-ulate  its  affairs  or  to  curtail  its  liberties,  its  mem- 
bers are  bound  to  obey  Him  rather  than  men.  They  are  bound 
by  all  legitimate  means  to  resist  such  usurpations,  and  to  stand  fast 
in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  them  free.  They  are 
under  equal  obligation  to  resist  all  undue  assumption  of  authority 
by  those  within  the  Church,  whether  it  be  by  the  brotherhood  or 
by  individual  officers,  or  by  Church  councils  or  courts.  The  alle- 
giance of  the  people  terminates  on  Christ.  They  are  bound  to 
obey  others  only  so  far  as  obedience  to  them  is  obedience  to  Him. 
In  the  early  ^ges  some  endeavoured  to  impose  on  Christians  the 
yoke  of  the  Jewish  law.  This  of  course  they  were  bound  to  resist. 
In  the  following  centuries,  and  by  degrees,  the  intolerable  rituals, 
ceremonies,  fasts,  festivals,  and  priestly,  prelatical,  and  papal  as- 
sumptions, which  oppress  so  large  a  part  of  the  Christian  world, 
have  been  imposed  upon  the  people  in  derogation  to  the  authority 


§3.]  NATURE   OF   CHRIST'S  KINGDOM.  607 

of  Christ  as  the  sole  head  of  the  Church.  Councils,  provincial  and 
ecumenical,  have  not  only  prescribed  creeds  contrary  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  also  have  made  laws  to  bind  the  conscience,  and  ordained 
observances  which  Christ  never  enjoined. 

As  Christ  is  the  head  of  his  earthly  kingdom,  so  is  He  its  only 
lawgiver.     He  prescribes,  — 

1.  The  terms  of  admission  into  his  kingdom.  These  cannot 
be  rightfully  altered  by  any  human  authority.  Men  can  neither 
add  to  them,  nor  detract  from  them.  The  rule  which  He  has 
laid  down  on  this  subject  is,  that  what  He  requires  as  a  con- 
dition for  admission  into  his  kingdom  in  heaven,  is  to  be  required 
as  a  condition  of  admission  to  his  kingdom  on  earth.  Nothing 
more  and  nothing  less  is  to  be  demanded.  We  are  to  receive  all 
those  whom  Christ  receives.  No  degree  of  knowledge,  no  confes- 
sion, beyond  that  which  is  necessary  to  salvation,  can  be  demanded 
as  a  condition  of  our  recognizing  any  one  as  a  Christian  brother 
and  treating  him  as  such.  Philip  baptized  the  Eunucli  on  the 
confession  "  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God."  (Acts 
viii.  37.)  "  Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith  receive  ye,  but  not 
to  doubtful  disputations."  (Rom.  xiv.  1.)  "  Who  art  thou  that 
judgest  another  man's  servant  ?  to  his  own  master  he  standeth  or 
falleth."  (Verse  4.)  "  Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  is  born  of  God."  (1  John  v.  1.)  For  men  to  reject  from 
their  fellowship  those  whom  God  has  received  into  his,  is  an  intol- 
erable assumption.  All  those  terms  of  Church  communion  which 
have  been  set  up  beyond  the  credible  profession  of  faith  in  Christ 
are  usurpations  of  an  authority  which  belongs  to  Him  alone. 

2.  A  second  law  of  this  visible  kingdom  of  our  Lord  is  that  her- 
etics and  those  guilty  of  scandalous  offences  should  be  excommu- 
nicated. "  A  man  that  is  an  heretic,  after  the  first  and  second 
admonition  reject."  (Titus  iii.  10.)  "  I  have  written  unto  you 
not  to  keep  company,  if  any  man  that  is  called  a  brother  be  a  for- 
nicator, or  covetous,  or  an  idolater,  or  a  railer,  or  a  drunkard,  or 
an  extortioner  ;  with  such  an  one  no  not  to  eat."  (1  Cor.  v.  11.) 
Our  Lord  teaches  that  such  an  offender  when  he  refuses  to  hear 
"  the  Church  "  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  "  heathen  man  and  a  pub- 
lican."    (Matt,  xviii.  17.) 

3.  Christ  has  ordained  that  the  power  of  exercising  discipline 
and  the  other  prerogatives  of  the  Church  should  be  in  the  hands 
of  officers,  having  certain  gifts  and  qualifications  and  duly  ap- 
pointed. 

4.  That  the  right  to  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  such  officers 


608      PART  m.     Ch.   XI.  — kingly   office   of   CHRIST. 

is  vested  in,  or  rather  belongs  to  those  who  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
have  themselves  been  called  to  be  office  bearers. 

5.  That  such  officers  are  not  lords  over  God's  heritage,  but 
servants.  Their  authority  is  restricted  to  prescribed  limits,  and 
the  people  have  a  right  to  a  substantive  part  in  the  government  of 
the  Church  through  their  representatives. 

6.  Every  member  of  Christ's  kingdom  is  bound  to  obey  his 
brethren  in  the  Lord.  Tiiis  obligation  does  not  rest  on  consent 
or  mutual  covenant,  but  on  the  fact  that  they  are  brethren,  the 
temples  and  organs  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is,  therefore,  not  lim- 
ited to  those  brethren  with  whom  the  individual  chooses  to  asso- 
ciate himself.  It  hence  follows  that  in  the  normal  condition  of 
Christ's  kingdom,  each  part  would  be  subject  to  the  whole,  and 
the  whole  would  be  one  body  in  the  Lord. 

The  development  of  these  several  points  belongs  to  the  depart- 
ment of  Ecclesiology. 

§  4.   The  Kingdom  of  Glory. 

The  Scriptures  teach  that  when  Christ  shall  come  again,  He  will 
gather  his  people  into  the  kingdom  prepared  for  them  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world.    Concerning  that  kingdom  it  is  taucjht,  — 

1.  That  it  shall  consist  only  of  the  redeemed.  None  but  the 
regenerate  or  converted  can  enter  that  kingdom.  The  tares  are  to 
be  separated  from  the  wheat.  The  evil,  we  ai'e  told  (Gal.  v.  21), 
"  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God."  Nothing  that  defiles  or 
is  untrue  can  enter  there. 

2.  Those  counted  worthy  of  that  kingdom  shall  not  only  be  ele- 
vated to  the  perfection  of  their  nature,  but  shall  also  be  exalted  to 
great  dignity,  power,  and  glory.  They  shall  be  kings  and  priests 
unto  God.  They  are  to  sit  on  thrones.  They  are  to  judge  angels. 
They  are  to  reign  with  Christ,  sharing  his  dominion  and  glory. 

3.  This  kingdom  is  to  be  everlasting. 

4.  The  bodies  of  the  saints,  now  natural,  must  be  rendered 
spiritual.  This  mortal  must  put  on  immortality,  and  this  corrupti- 
ble must  put  on  incorruption  ;  for  "  flesh  and  blood  (the  body  as 
now  organized)  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God."  (1  Cor.  xv. 
50.) 

5.  The  seat  of  this  kingdom  is  not  clearly  revealed.  Some  sup- 
pose that  it  is  to  be  on  this  earth  regenerated  and  fitted  for  this 
new  order  of  things.  Others  understand  the  Scriptures  to  teach 
that  heaven  as  indicating  an  entirely  different  locality,  is  to  be  the 
final  home  of  the  redeemed. 


§4.]  THE  KINGDOM  OF   GLORY,  609 

6.  Diversity  of  opinion  exists  as  to  the  time  when  this  kingdom 
shall  be  inaugurated.  ChiHasts  have  commonly  held  that  Christ  is 
to  come  a  thousand  years  (or  a  protracted  period)  before  the  gen- 
eral resurrection  and  final  judgment,  and  reign  visibly  on  earth, 
and  that  this  is  the  kingdom  to  which  the  prophecies  and  promises 
of  Scripture  especially  refer.  This  doctrine  of  necessity  greatly 
modifies  the  view  taken  of  the  nature  of  this  kingdom.  It  must 
be  an  earthly  kingdom,  as  distinguished  from  that  which  is  spirit- 
ual and  heavenly.  It  must  be  a  kingdom  which  flesh  and  blood 
can  inherit.  The  common  doctrine  of  the  Church  on  the  subject 
is  that  the  general  resurrection,  the  final  judgment,  the  end  of  the 
world,  and  the  inauguration  of  Christ's  kingdom  of  glory  are  syn- 
chronous events. 

These  are  topics  which  belong  to  the  head  of  Eschatology. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

HUMILIATION  OF   CHRIST. 

§  1.  Includes  his  Incarnation. 

The  Apostle  tells  us  that  Christ  humbled  Himself.  In  answer  to 
the  question,  Wherein  his  humiliation  consisted?  our  standards 
wisely  content  themselves  with  the  simple  statements  of  the  Scrip- 
tures :  "  Christ's  humiliation  consisted  in  his  beino;  born  and  that 
in  a  low  condition,  made  under  the  law,  undergoing  the  miseries 
of  this  life,  the  wrath  of  God,  and  the  cursed  death  of  the  cross  ; 
in  being  buried,  and  continuing  under  the  power  of  death  for  a 
time." 

On  all  these  points  the  schoolmen  and  modern  philosophical  the- 
ologians have  indulged  in  unprofitable  speculations.  All  that  is 
known,  or  can  be  known  respecting  them  is  the  facts  themselves. 

The  person  of  whom  all  the  particulars  above  enumerated  are 
predicated,  is  the  Eternal  Son  of  God.  It  was  He  who  was  born, 
who  suffered,  and  who  died.  It  was  a  person  equal  with  God,  who, 
the  Apostle  says,  in  Philippians  ii.  7,  8,  was  made  in  the  likeness 
of  men,  and  found  in  fashion  as  a  man.  It  was  the  Son  of  God 
who  was  born  of  a  woman,  and  made  under  the  lavv.  (Gal.  iv.  4.) 
In  the  Old  Testament  it  was  predicted  that  a  virgin  should  con- 
ceive, and  bring  forth  a  son,  who  should  be  called  Immanuel, 
the  mighty  God.  In  revealing  these  facts  the  Scriptures  reveal  all 
we  can  know  concerning  the  birth  of  Christ.  He  was  born  of  a 
woman.  In  the  birth  of  an  ordinary  human  being  there  are  mys- 
teries which  neither  speculation  nor  science  can  solve.  All  we 
know  is  that  in  conception  an  immaterial  principle,  a  human  soul, 
is  joined  in  unity  of  life  with  the  germ  of  a  human  body,  and, 
after  a  given  process  of  development,  is  born  a  perfect  child.  In 
the  case  of  our  Lord,  by  the  immediate  or  supernatural  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  these  elements  of  humanity,  material  and  imma- 
terial (body  and  soul),  from  the  beginning  of  their  existence  were 
in  personal  union  with  the  Logos,  so  that  the  child  born  of  the 
Viro-in  was  in  a  true  and  exclusive  sense  the  Son  of  God. 

In  opposition  to   the   early  heretics,  some   of  whom   said   that 


§  1.]  INCLUDES   THE   INCARNATION.  611 

Christ  had  no  real  human  body,  and  others,  that  his  body  was  not 
fashioned  out  of  matter,  but  formed  of  a  celestial  substance,  the 
fathers  inserted  in  their  creeds,  that  he  was  "  born  of  the  substance 
of  the  Virgin  Mary."  This  is  involved  in  the  Scriptural  state- 
ment that  He  was  born  of  a  woman,  which  can  only  mean  that  He 
was  born  in  the  sense  in  which  other  children  of  men  are  born  of 
women.  This  is  essential  to  his  true  humanity,  and  to  that  like- 
ness to  men  which  makes  them  his  brethren,  and  which  was  se- 
cured by  his  taking  part  in  flesh  and  blood.     (Heb.  ii.  14.) 

The  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  Itis  stooping  to  take  into 
personal  and  perpetual  union  with  Himself  a  nature  infinitely  lower 
than  his  own,  was  an  act  of  unspeakable  condescension,  and  there- 
foi'e  is  properly  included  in  the  particulars  in  which  He  humbled 
Himself  It  is  so  represented  in  the  Scriptures,  and  that  it  is  such 
is  involved  in  the  very  nature  of  the  act,  on  any  other  hypothesis 
than  that  which  assumes  the  equality  of  God  and  man  ;  or  that 
man  is  a  modus  existendi  of  the  Deity,  and  that  the  highest. 

The  Lutheran  theologians  exclude  the  incarnation  as  an  element 
of  Christ's  humiliation,  on  the  ground  that  his  humiliation  was  con- 
fined to  his  earthly  existence,  whereas  his  union  with  oiar  nature 
continues  in  heaven.  This,  however,  is  contrary  to  Scripture, 
because  the  Apostle  says  that  He  made  himself  of  no  reputation  in 
becoming  man.  (Phil.  ii.  7.)  It  is  constantly  represented  as  a 
wonderful  exhibition  of  his  love  for  his  people.  It  was  for  their 
sake  that  He  stooped  to  become  a  partaker  of  flesh  and  blood. 
The  objection  that  his  humiliation  can  include  only  what  is  limited 
to  the  earthly  stage  of  his  existence,  is  purely  verbal  or  technical. 
That  He  bears  his  glorified  humanity  in  heaven,  having  transmuted 
that  humble  mantle  into  a  robe  of  glory,  does  not  detract  from  the 
condescension  involved  in  its  assumption,  and  in  his  bearing  it  witli 
all  its  imperfections  during  his  earthly  pilgrimage. 

There  are  some  forms  of  the  modern  speculations  on  this  subject 
which  effectually  preclude  our  regarding  the  incarnation  as  an  act 
of  humiliation.  It  is  assumed,  as  stated  on  a  previous  page,  that 
this  union  of  the  divine  and  human  is  the  culminating  point  in  the 
regular  development  of  hunmnity.  Its  relation  to  the  sinfulness 
of  man  and  the  redemption  of  the  race  is  merely  incidental.  It 
would  have  been  reached  had  sin  never  entered  into  the  world. 
It  is  obvious  that  this  is  a  mere  philosophical  theory,  entirely  out- 
side of  the  Scriptures,  and  can  legitimately  have  no  influence  on 
Christian  doctrine.  The  Bible  everywhere  teaches  that  God  sent 
his  Son    into  the   world   to  save  sinners  ;  that  He  was  born  of  a 


612        PART  III.     Ch.   XII.  —  humiliation   OF   CHRIST. 

woman  and  made  under  the  law  for  our  redemption  ;  that  He  be- 
came man  in  order  that  He  might  die,  and  by  death  destroy  the 
power  of  Satan.  No  specuLation  inconsistent  with  these  prevail- 
ing representations  of  the  Word  of  God  can  be  admitted  as  true 
by  those  to  whom  that  word  is  the  rule  of  faith. 

Christ  was  horn  in  a  Low  Condition. 

Not  only  the  assumption  of  human  nature,  but  also  all  the  cir- 
cumstances by  which  it  was  attended  enter  into  the  Scriptural  view 
of  the  humiliation  of  our  Lord.  Had  He  when  He  came  into  the 
world  so  manifested  his  glory,  and  so  exercised  his  power,  as  to 
have  coerced  all  nations  to  ackno\vledo;e  Him  as  their  Lord  and 
God,  and  all  kings  to  bow  at  his  feet  and  bring  Him  their  tributes, 
enthroning  Him  as  the  rig-htful  and  absolute  sovereign  of  the  whole 
earth,  it  had  still  been  an  act  of  unspeakable  condescension  for 
God  to  become  man.  But  to  be  a  servant ;  to  be  born  in  a  stable 
and  cradled  in  a  manger  ;  to  be  so  poor  as  not  to  have  a  place 
where  to  lay  his  head;  to  appear  without  form  or  comeliness,  so  as 
to  be  despised  and  rejected  of  men,  makes  the  condescension  of 
our  Lord  to  pass  all  comprehension.  There  is,  indeed,  a  wonder- 
ful sublimity  in  this.  It  shows  the  utter  worthlessness  of  earthly 
pomp  and  splendour  in  the  sight  of  God.  The  manifestation  of  God 
in  the  form  of  a  servant,  has  far  more  power  not  only  over  the  im- 
agination but  also  over  the  heart,  than  his  appearing  in  the  form  of 
an  earthly  king  clothed  in  purple  and  crowned  with  gold.  We  bow 
at  the  feet  of  the  poor  despised  Galilean  with  profounder  rever- 
ence and  love  than  we  could  experience  had  He  appeared  as  Sol- 
omon in  all  his  glory. 

§  2.  He  was  made  under  the  Law. 

The  humiliation  of  Christ  included  also  his  being  made  under 
the  law.  The  law  to  which  Christ  subjected  Himself  was, 
(1.)  The  law  given  to  Adam  as  a  covenant  of  works ;  that  is,  as 
prescribing  perfect  obedience  as  the  condition  of  life.  (2.)  The 
Mosaic  law  which  bound  the  chosen  people.  (3.)  The  moral  law 
as  a  rule  of  duty.  Christ  was  subject  to  the  law  in  all  these  as- 
pects, in  that  He  assumed  the  obligation  to  fulfil  all  righteousness, 
i.  e.,  to  do  everything  which  the  law  in  all  its  forms  demanded. 
This  subjection  to  the  law  was  voluntary  and  vicarious.  It  was 
voluntary,  not  only  as  his  incarnation  was  a  voluntary  act,  and 
therefore  all  its  consequences  were  assumed  of  his  own  free  will  ; 
but  also  because  even  after  He  assumed  our  nature  He  was  free 


§  2.]  HE   WAS  MADE   UNDER  THE   LAW.  613 

from  obligation  to  the  law  in  every  sense  of  the  word,  until  He 
voluntarily  subjected  Himself  to  its  demands.  The  law  is  made 
for  men,  i.  e.,  for  human  persons.  But  Christ  was  not  a  human 
person.  He  remained  after  the  incarnation,  as  He  had  been  from 
eternity,  a  divine  person.  All  his  relations  to  the  law,  therefore, 
except  as  voluntarily  assumed,  were  those  which  God  himself  sus- 
tains to  it.  God  being  the  source  of  all  law  cannot  be  suiyect  to 
it,  except  by  an  act  of  humiliation.  Even  in  human  governments 
an  autocrat  is  above  the  laws.  They  derive  their  authority  from 
Him.  He  can  abrogate  or  change  them  at  pleasure.  He  is  sub- 
ject so  far  as  men  are  concerned  to  nothing  but  his  own  will.  And 
so  God,  as  the  source  of  all  law  to  his  creatures,  is  Himself  subject 
to  none.  He  acts  in  consistency  with  his  own  nature,  and  it  is  in- 
conceivable that  He  should  act  otherwise.  He  cannot  be  subject 
to  any  imposed  rule  of  action,  or  to  anything  out  of  Himself. 
Whatever  is  true  of  God,  is  true  of  God  manifested  in  the  flesh. 
That  Christ,  therefore,  should  assume  the  obligation  to  fulfil  the 
conditions  of  the  covenant  made  with  Adam,  to  observe  all  the 
injunctions  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  submit  to  the  moral  law  with  its 
promises  and  penalty  was  an  act  of  voluntary  humiliation.  This 
subjection  to  the  law  was  not  only  voluntary,  but  vicarious.  He 
was  in  our  stead,  as  our  representative,  and  for  our  benefit.  He 
was  made  under  the  law  that  He  might  redeem  those  who  were 
under  the  law.  (Gal.  iv.  4,  5.)  It  was  in  his  character  of  Redeemer 
that  He  submitted  to  this  subjection.  There  was  no  necessity  for  it 
on  his  part.  As  He  was  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  so  He  was  Lord  of  the 
law  in  all  its  extent  and  in  all  its  forms.  Obedience  to  it  was  not 
imposed  ab  extra  as  a  condition  of  his  personal  happiness  and  en- 
joyment of  the  divine  favour.  These  were  secured  by  his  God- 
head. It  was  therefore  solely  for  us  that  He  was  made  under  the 
law.  As  by  Adam's  disobedience  we  were  constituted  sinners, 
He  obeyed  that  we  might  be  constituted  righteous.  (Rom.  v.  19.) 
The  whole  course  of  Christ  on  earth  was  one  of  voluntary  obe- 
dience. He  came  to  do  the  will  of  his  Father.  In  the  Old  Testa- 
ment his  common  prophetic  designation  was  servant.  He  was 
called  the  servant  of  the  Lord,  "  my  servant."  He  says  of  Him- 
self, "  I  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but  the 
will  of  him  that  sent  me."  (John  vi.  38.)  "  Though  he  were  a 
Son,  yet  learned  he  obedience."  (Heb.  v.  8.)  "  Being  found  in 
fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself,  and  became  obedient  unto 
death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross."  (Phil.  ii.  8.)  All  this  was 
for  us.  His  subjection  to  the  law  and  to  the  will  of  the  Father 
was  voluntary  and  vicarious  for  us  men  and  for  our  salvation. 


614        PART  in.     Ch.  Xn.— humiliation   of   CHRIST. 

§  3.  His  Sufferings  and  Death. 
The  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  especially  his  ignominious  death 
on  the  cross,  are  an  important  element  in  his  humiliation.  These 
sufferings  continued  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  his  earthly 
life.  They  arose  partly  from  the  natural  infirmities  and  sensibili- 
ties of  the  nature  which  He  assumed,  partly  from  the  condition  of 
poverty  in  which  He  lived,  partly  from  constant  contact  with  sin- 
ners, which  was  a  continued  grief  to  his  holy  soul  and  caused  Him 
to  exclaim,  "  How  long  shall  I  be  with  you  ?  how  long  shall  I 
suffer  you  ;  "  partly  from  the  insults,  neglects,  and  opposition  to 
which  He  was  subjected ;  partly  from  the  cruel  buffetings  and 
scorning  to  which  He  submitted,  and  especially  from  the  agonies 
of  the  crucifixion,  the  most  painful  as  well  as  the  most  igno- 
minious mode  of  inflicting  the  penalty  of  death  ;  partly  from  the 
anguish  caused  by  the  foresight  of  the  dreadful  doom  that  awaited 
the  whole  Jewish  nation  ;  and  especially  no  doubt  from  the  myste- 
rious sorrow  arising  from  the  load  of  his  people's  sins  and  the  hid- 
ing of  his  Father's  face,  which  forced  from  his  brow  the  sweat  of 
blood  in  the  garden,  and  from  his  lips  the  cry  of  anguish  which 
He  uttered  on  the  cross.  These  are  wonders  not  only  of  love, 
but  of  self-abnegation  and  of  humiliation,  which  angels  endeavour 
to  comprehend,  but  which  no  human  mind  can  understand  or  esti- 
mate.    There  was  never  sorrow  like  unto  his  sorrow. 

§  4.  He  endured  the  Wrath  of  God. 

Our  standards  specify  "  the  wrath  of  God,"  as  a  distinct  particu- 
lar of  the  burden  of  sorrow  which  Christ,  for  our  sakes,  humbled 
Himself  to  bear.  The  word  wrath  is  the  familiar  Scriptural  term 
to  express  any  manifestation  of  the  displeasure  of  God  against  sin. 
Christ,  although  in  Himself  perfectly  holy,  bore  our  sins.  He  was 
"  made  sin  "  (2  Cor.  v.  21)  ;  or,  treated  as  a  sinner.  He  was 
*'  numbered  with  the  transgressors  "  (Is.  liii.  12),  not  only  in  the 
judgment  of  men,  but  in  the  dealing  of  God  with  his  soul  when 
He  stood  in  the  place  of  sinners.  Such  Psalms  as  the  sixteenth, 
fortieth,  and  especially  the  twenty-second,  which  treat  of  the  suf- 
ferings of  the  Messiah,  represent  Him  as  passing  through  all  the 
experiences  consequent  on  the  punishment  of  sin,  save  those  which 
have  their  source  in  the  sinfulness  of  the  sufferer.  We  therefore 
find  that  even  such  language  as  that  in  Psalm  xl.  12,  "  Innumei- 
able  evils  have  compassed  me  about:  mine  iniquities  have  taken 
hold  upon  me,  so  that  I  am  not  able  to  look  up :  they  are  more 


§5.]  HIS   DEATH   AND   BURIAL.  615 

than  the  hairs  of  mine  head  ;  therefore  my  heart  faileth  me,"  may 
not  inaj)propriately  be  taken  as  the  language  of  liis  holy  soul.  In 
that  case  "  mine  iniquities  "  (\nbl3?),  as  parallel  with  "  evils  "  (ni2?~i)> 
must  mean  "  my  sufferings  for  sin,"  i.  e.,  the  punishment  I  am 
called  to  bear.  The  words  uttered  by  our  Lord  upon  the  cross, 
"  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?  "  show  that 
He  was  suffering;  under  the  hiding  of  his  Father's  face.  What 
that  experience  was  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  understand.  Yet  as 
in  other  cases  He  suffered  anxiety,  fear,  a  sinking  of  the  heart,  and 
otlier  natural  states  of  mind  incident  to  the  circumstances  in  which 
He  was  placed  ;  so  also  He  suffered  all  that  a  holy  being  could 
suffer  that  was  enduring  the  divinely  appointed  penalty  for  sin, 
wliich  penalty  He  sustained  for  his  people.  Into  the  relation  be- 
tween his  divine  and  imman  nature  as  revealed  in  these  experi- 
ences, it  is  in  vain  for  us  to  inquire.  As  tliat  relation  was  con- 
sistent with  his  human  nature's  being  ignorant,  with  its  progressive 
development,  with  all  its  natural  affections,  with  its  feeling  appre- 
hension in  the  presence  of  danger,  and  dread  in  the  prospect  of 
death,  so  it  was  consistent  with  the  feeling  of  depression  and 
anguish  under  the  obscuration  of  the  favour  of  God.  As  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ  were  not  merely  the  pains  of  martyrdom,  but  were 
judicially  inflicted  in  satisfaction  of  justice,  they  produced  the 
effect  due  to  their  specific  character.  This  of  course  does  not  im- 
ply that  our  Lord  suffered  as  the  finally  impenitent  suffer.  Their 
sufferings  are  determined  by  their  subjective  state.  The  loss  of  the 
divine  favour  produces  in  them  hatred,  venting  itself  in  blasphe- 
mies (Rev.  xvi.  10,  11),  but  in  Christ  it  produced  the  most  earnest 
longing  after  the  light  of  God's  countenance,  and  entire  submission, 
in  the  midst  of  the  depressing  and  overwlielming  darkness. 

§  5.  His  Death  and  Burial. 
Christ  humbled  Himself  even  unto  death,  and  continued  under  the 
])ower  of  death  for  a  time.  The  reality  of  Christ's  death  has  never 
been  disputed  among  Christians.  Some  modern  rationalists,  un- 
willing to  admit  a  miraculous  resurrection,  endeavoured  to  show 
that  death  was  not  in  his  case  actually  consummated,  but  that  He 
was  deposited  in  an  unconscious  state  in  the  tomb.  In  answer  to 
the  arguments  of  rationalists,  certain  Ciiristlan  writers  have  taken 
the  trouble  to  demonstrate,  from  the  facts  stated  in  the  account  of 
the  crucifixion,  that  it  was  not  a  swoon,  but  actual  death  which 
occurred.  We  are  raised  above  such  question  by  believing  the 
inspiration  of  the  Now  Testament.     In  the  apostolic  writings  the 


1 


616        PART  III.     Ch.   XII. —humiliation   OF   CHRIST. 

death  of  Christ  is  so  often  asserted  and  assumed  that  the  fact  can- 
not be  doubted  by  any  who  admit  the  infallible  authority  of  those 
writings. 

Under  the  clause,  "  He  continued  under  the  power  of  death  for 
a  time,"  is  intended  to  be  expressed  all  that  is  meant  by  ancient 
creeds  which  asserted  "  He  descended  into  hell."  Such  at  least  is 
the  view  presented  in  our  standards  in  accordance  with  the  teach- 
ings of  the  majority  of  the  Reformed  theologians. 

That  the  sufferings  of  Christ  ceased  the  moment  He  expired  on 
the  cross,  is  plain  from  John  xix.  30,  where  it  is  recorded,  "  When 
Jesus  had  received  the  vinegar,  he  said,  It  is  finished  (TcreXco-rai)  : 
and  he  bowed  his  head,  and  gave  up  the  ghost."  This  is  univer- 
sally admitted.  As,  however,  such  passages  as  Psalms  xviii.  5,  and 
cxvi.  3,  "  The  sorrows  of  death  "  (Hebrew  Sheol  in  Psalm  xviii. 
5),  were  understood  to  mean  extreme  suffering,  many  of  the  Re- 
formed understood  the  descensus  ad  inferos  to  refer  to  the  extreme 
agony  of  our  Lord  in  the  garden  and  upon  the  cross,  under  the 
hiding  of  his  Father's  face.  But,  in  the  first  place,  the  literal 
meaning  of  those  passages  is,  "  The  bands  (not  the  sorrows)  of 
Sheol,  or  (as  it  is  in  Psalms  cxvi.  3),  of  death."  The  allusion  in 
both  cases  is  the  familiar  one  to  a  net.  The  idea  is  that  the  Psalm- 
ist felt  himself  so  entangled  that  death  appeared  inevitable.  This 
is  something  very  different  from  what  is  meant  by  "  descending 
into  Hell  or  Sheol."  And  in  the  second  place,  the  position  which 
the  clause  in  question  holds  in  the  creed  forbids  this  interpretation. 
It  follows  the  clause  referring  to  the  death  and  burial  of  Christ.  It 
is  the  natural  exegesis  of  the  words  immediately  preceding  it. 
"  He  was  crucified,  dead,  and  buried,  he  descended  into  Sheol," 
i.  e.,  he  passed  into  the  invisible  state.  But  it  would  be  utterly 
incongruous  to  say,  "  He  was  dead,  buried,  and  suffered  extreme 
aofony,"  when  it  is  admitted  that  his  sufferings  ended  upon  the  cross. 

In  the  larger  Westminster  Catechism,^  it  is  said,  "  Christ's  hu- 
miliation after  his  death  consisted  in  his  being  buried,  and  continu- 
ing in  the  state  of  the  dead,  and  under  the  power  of  death  till 
the  third  day,  which  hath  been  otherwise  expressed  in  these  words. 
He  descended  into  hell.''''  That  this  is  the  correct  view  of  Christ's 
descensus  ad  inferos  may  be  argued,  — 

1.  From  the  original  and  proper  meaning  of  the  Greek  word 
aSrjs,  and  the  corresponding  English  word  hell.  Both  mean  the 
unseen  world.  The  one  signifies  what  is  unseen,  the  other  what  is 
covered  and  thus  hidden  from  view.     Both  are  used  as  the  render- 

1  Answer  to  Question  50. 


§5.]  HIS   DEATH   AND  BURIAL.  617 

ing  for  tlie  Hebrew  word  biStt?  (probably  from  bstr  to  ask,  or  de- 
mand), the  state  or  place  of  the  dead  ;  the  orcus  rapax  of  the  Lat- 
ins. All  the  dead,  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  alike  go  into  the 
invisible  world,  or,  in  this  sense,  "  descend  into  hell."  Hence  to  be 
buried,  to  go  down  to  the  grave,  to  descend  into  hell,  are  in  Scrip- 
tural language  equivalent  forms  of  expression.  In  Genesis  xxxvii. 
35,  Jacob  says  n^ist:^'  l^S,  which  the  Septuagint  renders  Kara/Sr/- 
cro/Lxai  CIS  aSou ;  the  Vulgate,  Descendam  in  infernum  ;  the  English, 
"  I  will  go  down  into  the  grave."  Thus  also  in  Psalm  xxx.  4, 
David  says,  '*tpp3  biSttJ-jn  n^b3;n,  which  the  Septuagint  renders, 
dviyyayes  «|  aSou  rrjv  ^l/v^r^v  jxov ;  the  Vulgate,  "  Eduxisti  ab  inferno 
animam  meam  :  "  and  so  Luther,  "  Du  hast  meine  Seele  aus  der 
Holle  gefiihret ;  "  while  the  English  version  is,  "  Thou  hast  brought 
up  my  soul  from  the  grave,"  which  is  explained  in  the  following 
clause,  "  Thou  hast  kept  me  alive,  that  I  should  not  go  down  to 
the  pit."  In  Scriptural  language,  therefore,  to  descend  into  Hades 
or  Hell,  means  nothing  more  than  to  descend  to  the  grave,  to  pass 
from  the  visible  into  the  invisible  world,  as  happens  to  all  men 
when  they  die  and  are  buried. 

2.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  these  words  were 
not  in  the  creed  originally.  They  were  introduced  in  the  fourth 
century,  and  then  not  as  a  separate  or  distinct  article,  but  as  merely 
explanatory.  "  He  was  dead  and  buried,"  i.  e.,  he  descended  into 
hell.  That  the  two  clauses  were  at  first  considered  equivalent  is 
obvious,  because  some  copies  of  the  creed  had  the  one  form,  some 
the  other,  and  some  both,  though  all  were  intended  to  say  the 
same  thing. 

3.  The  passages  of  Scripture  which  are  adduced  to  prove  that 
Christ  descended  into  hell  in  a  sense  peculiar  to  Himself,  do  not 
teach  that  doctrine.  In  Psalm  xvi.  10,  "  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my 
soul  in  hell  ;  neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thy  Holy  One  to  see  cor- 
ruption," merely  expresses  the  confidence  of  the  speaker  that  God 
would  not  leave  him  under  the  power  of  death.  '  Thou  wilt  not 
deliver  me  to  tlie  power  of  Sheol,  nor  suffer  me  to  see  corruption.' 
This  is  the  precise  sense  ascribed  to  the  passage  by  St.  Peter  in 
Acts  ii.  27-31,  and  by  St.  Paul  in  Acts  xili.  34,  35.  In  both  cases 
the  Psalm  is  quoted  to  prove  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  David 
was  left  in  the  state  of  the  dead ;  his  body  did  see  corruption. 
Christ  was  delivered  from  the  grave  before  corruption  had  time  to 
affect  his  sacred  person.  My  soul  ("IC??),  may  be  taken  here,  as  so 
often  elsewhei-e,  for  the  perscmal  pronoun,  as  in  the  passage  quoted 
above.      Psalm  xxx.  4  :   "  Thou   hast  brought  up  my  soul   (me) 


618        PART  ni.     Ch.   Xn.  —  humiliation   of   CHRIST. 

from  the  grave."  See  Psalm  iii.  2,  "  Many  there  be  which  say 
of  my  soul  (me),  there  is  no  help  for  him  in  God."  Psalm  vii.  3, 
"Lest  he  tear  my  soul  (me)  like  a  lion,"  Psalm  xi.  1,  "How- 
say  ye  to  my  soul  (to  me)  Flee  as  a  bird  to  your  mountain." 
Psalm  XXXV.  7,  "  A  pit  which  without  cause  they  have  digged  for 
my  soul  (for  me)."  But  even  if  the  words  "  my  soul  "  be  taken 
in  their  strict  sense,  the  meaning  is  still  the  same.  The  souls  of 
men  at  death  pass  into  the  invisible  world,  they  are  hidden  from 
the  view  and  companionship  of  men.  This  condition  was  to  con- 
tinue in  the  case  of  Christ  only  for  a  few  days.  He  was  to  be 
recalled  to  life.  His  soul  was  to  be  reunited  to  his  body,  as  it  was 
before. 

A  second  passage  relied  upon  in  this  matter  is  Ephesians  iv.  9, 
"  Now  that  he  ascended,  what  is  it  but  that  he  also  descended  first 
into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth  ?  "  By  "  the  lower  parts  of  the 
earth "  many  understand  the  parts  lower  than  the  earth ;  the 
lower,  or  infernal  regions.  But  in  the  first  place,  this  is  altogether 
an  unnecessary  interpretation.  The  words  may  naturally  mean 
here,  as  elsewhere,  the  lower  parts,  namely,  the  earth  ;  the  geni- 
tive T^s  7^s  being  the  genitive  of  opposition.  See  Isaiah  xliv.  23, 
"Sing,  O  ye  heavens;  ....  shout,  ye  lower  pai-ts  the  earth."  In 
the  second  place,  the  context  neither  here  nor  in  Psalm  Ixviii. 
whence  the  passage  is  taken,  or  on  which  the  Apostle  is  comment- 
ing, suggests  any  other  contrast  than  that  between  heaven  and 
earth.  '  He  that  ascended  to  heaven,  is  he  who  first  descended 
to  the  earth.'  In  the  third  place,  the  Apostle's  object  does  not 
render  either  necessary  or  probable  any  reference  to  what  hap- 
pened after  the  death  of  Christ.  He  simply  says  that  the  Psalm 
(Ixviii.)  which  speaks  of  the  triumph  of  its  subject  must  be  under- 
stood of  the  Messiah  because  it  speaks  of  an  ascension  to  heaven, 
which  implies  a  previous  descent  to  the  earth. 

Much  less  can  1  Timothy  iii.  16,  where  it  said  of  God  as  man- 
ifest in  the  flesh  that  He  was  "  seen  of  angels,"  be  understood  of 
Christ  appearing  in  the  under-world  in  the  presence  of  Satan  and 
his  angels.  The  worddyye'Aoi,  angels,  without  qualification,  is  never 
used  of  fallen  angels.  The  Apostle  refers  to  the  evidence  afforded 
of  the  divinity  of  Christ;  He  was  justified  by  the  Spirit,  seen  and 
recognized  by  angels,  preached  among  the  Gentiles,  believed  upon 
in  the  world,  and  received  up  into  glory.  All  classes  of  beings  had 
been  the  witnesses  of  the  fact  that  God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh. 

Much  the  most  difficult  and  important  passage  bearing  on  this 
question  is  1  Peter  iii.  18,  19,  "  Being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh, 


§5.]  HIS   DEATH   AND   BURIAL.  619 

but  quickened  by  the  Spirit :  by  which  also  he  went  and  preached 
to  the  spirits  in  prison."  The  EngUsh  version  is  an  exposition,  as 
well  as  a  translation  of  the  passage.  As  the  words  stand  in  our 
Bible  they  afford  no  ground  for  the  doctrine  that  Christ  after  death 
went  into  hell  and  preached  to  the  spirits  there  confined.  The 
Greek  is,  OavaTOjOels  fJikv  (rapKi,  ^(aoiroirjOei^  Se  Tri/ev/xart,  iv  Ji  Kat  rots  iv 
^vXaKTJ  TTvevfiaa-L  TropevOeU  e.Kypv$ei'.  If  in  this  passage  crapKi  means  the 
body,  and  Tricu'/xan,  the  soul;  if  the  dative  is  to  have  the  same 
force  in  both  clauses;  and  if  ^woTrotry^ci's  be  taken  to  mean  preserved 
alive;  then  the  natural  interpretation  undoubtedly  is,  'Being  put 
to  death  as  to  the  body,  but  continuing  alive  as  to  the  soul,  in 
which  having  gone  he  preached  to  the  spirits  in  prison.'  How- 
ever different  the  views  entertained  as  to  what  spirits  are  here 
meant,  whether  the  spirits  of  living  men  in  spiritual  bondage  ;  or 
the  evil  spirits  of  the  dead  ;  or  the  spirits  of  the  faithful  of  former 
generations,  still  detained  in  Hades;  the  passage  must,  in  this 
view,  be  understood  to  teach  that  Christ  preached  after  his  death, 
and  if  so,  to  the  spirits  of  the  dead.  This  is  the  interpretation 
which  has  been  extensively  adopted  in  all  ages  of  the  Church. 
The  principal  argument  in  its  favour  is  that  when  o-ap^  and  tti  eS/xa 
are  placed  in  antithesis,  if  the  former  mean  the  body  the  latter 
must  mean  the  soul.  In  the  present  case  as  Christ's  death  is 
spoken  of,  and  as  it  was  only  the  body  that  died,  it  is  urged  that 
(xapKi  must  refer  to  the  body.  The  objections,  however,  to  this 
interpretation  are  very  serious. 

1.  When  Christ  is  the  subject  the  antithesis  between  a-ap^  and 
irvevpLa  is  not  necessarily  that  between  the  body  and  soul.  It  may 
be  between  the  human  and  the  divine  nature.  So  in  Romans  i.  3, 
it  is  said,  He  was  the  son  of  David  Kara  o-apKa,  as  to  his  human 
nature  ;  but  the  Son  of  God  Kara  irvcvfia,  as  to  his  divine  nature. 

2.  The  word  ^(ooTroiew  never  means  to  continue  in  life,  but  al- 
wiays  to  impart  life.  Therefore  to  render  ^woTroiTj^ct's,  being  preserved 
alive,  is  contrar^'^  to  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word.  It  is  more- 
ovei  opposed  to  the  antithesis  between  that  word  and  6ai'aTwdet<i ; 
as  the  one  expr^^sses  the  idea  of  the  infliction  of  death,  the  other 
expresses  that  of  vivifying.  '  He  was  put  to  death  as  to  his  hu- 
manity, or  as  a  man  ;  but  was  quickened  by  the  Spirit,  or  divine 
nature,  energy  or  power  that  resided  in  his  person.'  He  had 
power  to  lay  down  his  life,  and  He  had  power  to  take  it  again. 

3.  The  difference  between  the  force  of  the  two  datives  is  justi- 
fied and  determined  by  the  meaning  of  the  participles  with  which 
aapKL  and  Trvi-ufxaTi  are  connected.     '  He  was  put  to  death  as  to  the 


620        PART  m.     Ch.  XIL  —  humiliation   of   CHRIST. 

flesh ;  he  was  made  ahve  hy  the  Spirit.'  The  one  word  demands 
one  force  of  the  dative,  and  the  other  a  different,  but  equally  legit- 
imate sense. 

4.  Another  objection  to  the  interpretation  above  mentioned  is, 
that  it  makes  the  passage  teach  a  doctrine  contrary  to  the  analogy 
of  faith.  Whenever  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  preaching,  in  all  cases 
in  which  the  verb  K-qprnraeiv  is  used,  it  refers  to  making  proclama- 
tion of  the  gospel.  If,  therefore,  this  passage  teaches  that  Christ, 
after  his  death  and  before  his  resurrection,  preached  to  spirits  in 
prison,  it  teaches  that  He  preached  the  gospel  to  them.  But  accord- 
ing to  the  faith  of  the  whole  Church,  Latin,  Lutheran,  and  Re- 
formed, the  offer  of  salvation  through  the  gospel  is  confined  to  the 
present  life.  It  is  certainly  a  strong  objection  to  an  interpretation 
of  any  one  passage  that  it  makes  it  teach  a  doctrine  nowhere  else 
taught  in  the  Word  of  God,  and  which  is  contrary  to  the  teachings 
of  that  Word,  as  understood  by  the  universal  Church.  For  such 
reasons  as  these  the  authors  of  our  standards  have  discarded  the 
doctrine  of  a  descensus  ad  inferos  in  any  other  sense  than  a  depart- 
ure into  the  invisible  state.  The  meaning  of  the  whole  passage  as 
given  by  Beza  is  in  accordance  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed 
Church.  "  Christus,  inquit  [apostolus],  quem  dixi  virtute  vivifi- 
catum,  jam  olim  in  diebus  Noe,  quum  appararetur  area,  profectus 
sive  adveniens,  e  ccelo  videlicet,  ne  nunc  primum  putemus  ilium 
ecclesise  curam  et  administrationem  suscepisse  adveniens,  inquam, 
non  corpore  (quod  nondum  assumpserat),  sed  ea  ipsa  virtute,  per 
quam  postea  resurrexit,  prsedicavit  spiritibus  illis,  qui  nunc  in 
carcere  meritas  dant  poenas,  utpote  qui  recta  monenti  Noe  .... 
parere  olim  recusarint."  ^ 

The  majority  of  modern  interpreters  adopt  the  old  interpretation. 
Bretschnelder^  expresses  the  sense  of  the  passage  thus:  "  As  God 
once  through  Noah  exhorted  men  to  repentance,  and  threatened 
to  bring  upon  them  the  flood,  as  a  punishment,  so  Jesus  preached 
redemption,  or  announced  the  completion  of  the  work  of  atone- 
ment, to  the  souls  of  men  in  Hades."  According  tb  others  the 
souls  to  whom  Christ  preached  were  those  who  in  the  days  of 
Noah  had  rejected  the  offers  of  mercy.  According  to  the  Luther- 
ans Christ  after  his  death  descended  to  the  abode  of  evil  spirits,  not 
to  preach  the  gospel,  but  to  triumph  over  Satan  and  despoil  him  of 
his  power.     The  "  Form  of  Concord  "^  says  on  this  subject,  "  Sim- 

1  Beza,  Novum  Teslamenhim,  1  Pet.  iii.  19,  edit.  (Geneva?)  15(j5,  p.  570. 

2  Bretschneider,  Dogmalik,  3d  edit.,  Leipzig,  1828,  vol.  ii.  p.  219. 
8  Art.  Lx.  2 ;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolici,  p.  788. 


§5.]  HIS   DEATH  AND  BURIAL.  621 

pliclter  credlmus,  quod  tota  persona  (Christi),  Deus  et  homo,  post 
sepulturam,  ad  inferos  descenderit,  Satanam  devieerit,  potestatem 
inferorum  everterit,  et  Diabolo  omnem  vim  et  potentiam  eripuerit. 
Quomodo  vero  Cliristus  id  elfecerit,  non  est  ut  argutis  et  sublimi- 
bus  imaginationibus  scrutemur." 

The  Romish  Doctrine  of  the  '■''Descensus  ad  Inferos.'''' 

The  Romanists  teach  that  the  department  of  Hades  to  which 
Christ  descended,  was  not  the  abode  of  evil  spirits,  but  that  in 
which  dwelt  the  souls  of  believers  who  died  before  the  advent  of 
the  Redeemer,  and  that  the  object  of  his  descent  was  neither  to 
preach  the  gospel,  nor  to  despoil  Satan,  but  to  deliver  the  pious 
dead  from  the  intermediate  state  in  which  they  then  were  (called 
the  Limhus  patrurn)^  and  to  introduce  them  into  heaven.  These 
were  the  captives  which,  according  to  Ephesians  iv.  8,  He  led  in 
triumph  when  He  ascended  or^high  after  his  resurrection.  This 
doctrine  not  only  has  no  Scriptural  foundation,  but  it  rests  on  an 
unscriptural  theory  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  truth  and  ordinances 
as  revealed  and  ordained  under  the  old  dispensation.  Believing, 
as  the  Church  of  Rome  does,  that  saving  grace  is  communicated 
only  through  the  Christian  sacraments,  Romanists  are  constrained 
to  believe  that  there  was  no  real  remission  of  sin,  or  sanctification, 
before  the  institution  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  sacraments 
of  the  Old  Testament,  they  say  simply  signified  grace,  while  those 
of  the  New  actually  convey  it.  This  being  the  case,  believers 
dying  before  the  coming  of  Christ  were  not  really  saved,  but 
passed  into  a  state  of  negative  existence,  neither  of  suffering  nor 
of  happiness,  from  which  it  was  the  object  of  Christ's  descent  into 
Hades  to  deliver  them.  The  above  are  only  a  few  of  the  specu- 
lations in  which  theologians  in  all  ages  of  the  Church  have  in- 
dulged as  to  the  nature  and  design  of  the  descensus  ad  inferos  in 
which  all  profess  to  believe.  Whole  volumes  have  been  devoted 
to  this  subject.^ 

The  Views  of  Lutherans  and  of  Modern  Theologians  on  the  Hu- 
miliation of  Christ. 

As  the  Lutherans  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  departed  from 
the  faith  of  the  Church  on  the  person  of  Christ,  they  were  led 
into  certain  peculiarities  of  doctrine  on  other  related  subjects.     In- 

1  J.  S.  Semler,  Z)e  Vario  et  Impari  Veierum  Studio  in  recolenda  Bistoria  Descensus  Christi 
ad  Inferos.  A.  Dietelmaier,  Hist.  Dogm.  de  Descensu  Christi  ad  Inferos.  J.  Clausen,  Dog- 
matis  de  Descensu  J.  C.  ad  Inf.  Ilistorin  Biblica  et  Ecclesiastica.  Harker,  Diss,  de  Descensu 
Jesu  ad  Inferos.     Bishop  Pearson,  C>«  the  Creed. 


622        PART  III.     Ch.   XII.  —  humiliation   OF   CHRIST. 

sisting,  as  Luther  did,  on  tlie  local  presence  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  he  was  constrained  to  believe  that 
Christ  as  to  his  human  nature  was  everywhere  present.  This  in- 
volved the  assumption  that,  in  virtue  of  the  hypostatical  union,  the* 
attributes  of  the  divine,  were  communicated  to  his  human  nature, 
so  that  Christ's  human  soul  was  omniscient,  almighty,  and  omni- 
present. And  as  this  communication  of  attributes  took  place  from 
the  very  beginning,  the  human  nature  of  Christ  from  the  com- 
mencement of  its  existence,  was  endowed  with  all  divine  perfec- 
tions. Yet  not  only  in  infancy,  but  throughout  the  whole  of  his 
earthly  pilgi'image.  He  appeared,  except  on  rare  occasions,  as  an 
ordinary  man,  possessed  as  a  man  of  no  attributes  which  did  not 
belong  to  other  men.  His  miracles  of  knowledge  and  power  were 
occasional  manifestations  of  what  as  a  man  He  really  was,  as  those 
miracles  were  eifects  produced,  not  by  his  divine  nature  or  Logos, 
nor  by  the  Holy  Spirit  with  whitjh  his  humanity  was  endowed 
without  measure,  but  by  his  human  nature  itself.  His  humiliation, 
therefore,  consisted  mainly  and  essentially  in  his  voluntarily  abstain- 
ing from  the  exercise  and  manifestation  of  the  divine  attributes 
with  which  his  humanity  was  endowed  and  imbued.  In  the  "  Form 
of  Concord"^  it  is  said,  "  Credimus  ....  filium  hominis  ad  dex- 
teram  omnipotentis  majestatis  et  virtutis  Dei  realiter,  hoc  est,  vere 
et  reipsa  secundum  humanam  suam  naturam  esse  exaltatum,  cum 
homo  ille  in  Deum  assumptus  fuerit,  quamprimum  in  utero  matris 

a  Spiritu  Sancto  est  conceptus Eamque  majestatem,  ratione 

unionis  personalis  semper  Christus  habuit :  sed  in  statu  suae  humili- 
tationis  sese  exinanivit  ....  Quare  majestatem  illam  non  semper, 
sed  quoties  ipsi  visum  fuit,  exseruit,  donee  formam  servi,  non  autem 
naturam  humanam  post  resurrectionem  plene  et  prorsus  deponeret, 
et  in    plenariam   usurpationem   manifestationem   et   declarationem 

divinae  majestatis  collocaretur Hanc  suam  potestateni  ubi- 

que  praesens  exercere  potest,  ncque  quidquam  illi  aut  impossibile 
est  aut  ignotum.  Inde  adeo,  et  quidem  facillime,  corpus  suum 
verum  et  sanguinem  suum  in  sacra  coena  prsesens  distribuere  po- 
test." "  Humana  natura  ....  inde  ....  quod  cum  divina  na- 
tura  personaliter  unita  est  ...  .  prater  et  supra  naturales  atque 
in  ipsa  permanentes  humanas  proprietates,  etiam  singulares  .... 
supernaturales  ....  prserogativas  majestatis,  glorias,  virtutis  ac 
potentiae  super  omne,  quod  nominatur,  non  solum  in  hoc  seculo 
sed  etiam  in  futuro,  accepit."^  "[Christus,]  postquam  .  .  .  . 
super  omnes  ccelos  ascendit,  et  revei'a  omnia  implet,  et  ubique  non 

1  Art.  VIII.  16,  17;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolki,  pp.  603,  609.        2  Art.  viii.  51;  Jbid.  p.  774. 


§5.]  HIS   DEATH   AND   BURIAL.  623 

tantum  ut  Deus,  verum  etiam  ut  homo,  prsesens  dominatur  et 
regnat,  a  mari  ad  mare."  ^  "  Christus  ....  etiam  secundum 
assumptam  humanam  naturam  omnia  novit  et  potest."  ^  "  Eam 
majestatem  statim  in  sua  conceptione,  etiam  in  utero  matris  habuit: 
sed  ut  Apostolus  loquitur  se  ipsum  exinanivit,  eamque,  ut  D.  Lu- 
therus  docet,  in  statu  suae  humiliationis  secreto  habuit,  neque  eam 
semper,  sed  quoties  ipsi  visum  f'uit,  usurpavit."  ^ 

In  the  seventeenth  century  there  was  an  earnest  and  protracted 
dispute  among  the  Lutherans  as  to  the  question,  whether  the  hu- 
miliation of  Christ  was  a  mere  Kpvij/L'i  (or  concealing)  of  the  divine 
majesty  of  his  human  nature  ;  or  whether  it  was  an  actual  /ccVwo-ts, 
an  emptying  himself  for  the  time  being  of  the  divine  attributes 
which  belonged  to  his  humanity  in  virtue  of  the  hypostatlcal  union. 
According  to  the  former  view,  Christ,  as  nian,  was  from  the  mo- 
ment of  his  conception,  everywhere  present,  omnipotent,  and  omnis- 
cient, and  actually  in  his  human  nature  governed  the  universe. 
The  only  difference,  therefore,  between  the  state  of  humihation 
and  that  of  exaltation,  concerns  the  mode  in  which  this  universal 
dominion  was  exercised.  While  on  earth  it  was  in  a  way  not  to 
be  apparent  and  recognized  ;  whereas  after  his  ascension,  it  was 
open  and  avowed.  According  to  the  opposite  view  both  these 
points  were  denied.  That  is,  while  it  was  admitted  that  the  human 
nature  was  entitled  to  these  divine  attributes  and  prerogatives, 
from  the  moment  of  its  conception,  nevertheless  it  is  said  that  they 
were  not  claimed  or  exercised  while  He  was  on  earth  ;  and  there- 
fore during  his  humiliation  although  there  was  a  kt^o-is  or  possession 
of  the  attributes,  yet  there  was  not  the  XPW'-'^  <^^  them,  and  conse- 
quently during  that  period  He  was  not  as  man  omnipresent,  omnis- 
cient, and  everywhere  dominant.  The  exaltation,  therefore,  was 
not  a  mere  change  in  the  mode  of  exercising  his  divine  preroo-a- 
tives,  but  an  entering  on  their  use  as  well  as  on  their  manifesta- 
tion. The  theologians  of  Tiibingen  maintained  the  former  view, 
those  of  Giessen  the  latter.  The  question  having  been  referred  to 
the  Saxon  theologians  they  decided  substantially  in  favour  of  the 
latter  doctrine,  and  this  was  the  view  generally  adopted  by  the 
Lutheran  divines.  The  precise  point  of  dispute  between  the  par- 
ties was  "  An  homo  Christus  in  Deum  assumtus  in  statu  exinani- 
tionis  tanquam  rex  prjesens  cuncta  licet  latenter  gubernarit  ? " 
This  tlie  one  party  affirmed  and  the  other  denied.  The  one  made 
omnipresence   and  dominion  the  necessary  consequence  of  the  hy- 

1  Formula  Concordice,  Art.  viii.  27;  Hase,  Libri  SymboUci,  p.  768. 

2  Art.  VIII.  74;  Ibid.  p.  782.  8  Art.  viii.  26;  Ibid.  p.  767. 


624      PART  m.   Ch.  xn.  —  humiliation  of  christ. 

postatical  union  ;  the  other,  while  admitting  the  actual  potential 
possession  of  the  divine  attributes  by  the  human  nature  as  a  conse- 
quence of  its  union  with  the  divine,  regarded  their  use  as  depend- 
ent on  the  divine  will.  It  is  conceivable  that  power  should  be 
dependent  on  the  will,  and  therefore  in  relation  to  that  attribute 
the  distinction  between  the  possession  and  use  might  be  admitted ; 
but  no  such  distinction  is  possible  in  reference  to  the  attribute  of 
omnipresence.  If  that  perfection  belonged  to  the  human  nature  of 
Christ  (to  his  body  and  soul),  in  virtue  of  the  hypostatical  union, 
it  must  have  been  omnipresent  from  the  moment  that  this  union 
was  consummated.  This  is  involved  in  the  very  statement  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  hypostatical  union  as  given  by  the  Lutheran  divines. 
Thus  Gerhard  ^  says,  "  Neque  enim  pars  parti,  sed  totus  Xdyos  toti 
carni  et  tota  caro  toti  Aoyw  est  unita ;  ideo  propter  vTroo-rao-ews  ravro- 
Trjra  kol  tmv  <f)V(T€(iiv  TrtpL^^wprja-Lv,  Xoyos  ita  prassens  est  cami  et  caro  ita 
prsesens  est  tw  Aoyw,  ut  nee  Xoyos  sit  extra  carnem  nee  caro  extra 
Xdyov,  sed  ubicunque  est  Xdyos,  ibi  etiam  praesentissimam  sibi  habet 
camem,  quippe  quam  in  personae  unitatem  assumsit :  et  ubicun- 
que est  caro,  ibi  prsesentissimum  sibi  habet  tov  Xo'yov,  quippe  in  cujus 
hypostasin  est  assumta.  Quemadmodum  Xdyos  non  est  extra  suam 
deitatem,  cujus  est  hypostasis :  sic  etiam  non  est  extra  suam  car- 
nem, essentia  quidem  finitam,  in  X6yw  tamen  personaliter  subsisten- 
tem.  Ut  enim  t<3  Xdyu  propria  est  sua  deitas  per  aeternam  a  Patre 
generationem :  sic  eidem  tw  Xdyw  propria  facta  est  caro  per  unionem 
personalem." 

According  to  the  Lutheran  system,  therefore,  the  subject  of  the 
humiliation  was  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  and  consisted  essen- 
tially in  the  voluntary  abstaining  from  the  exercise  and  manifesta- 
tion of  the  divine  attributes  with  which  it  was  imbued  and  inter- 
penetrated. According  to  the  Reformed  doctrine  it  was  He  who 
was  equal  with  God  who  emptied  Himself  in  assuming  the  fashion 
of  a  man,  and  this  divine  person  thus  clothed  in  our  nature  hum- 
bled Himself  to  be  obedient  even  unto  death.  It  is  therefore  of  the 
eternal  Son  of  whom  all  that  is  taught  of  the  humiliation  of  Christ 
is  to  be  predicated.  This  is  clearly  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostle  in 
Philippians  ii.  6-8.  It  is  the  person  who  thought  it  no  robbery  to 
be  equal  with  God,  of  whom  it  is  said,  (1.)  That  He  made  Him- 
self of  no  reputation  (eauror  eVeVowc).  (2.)  That  this  was  done  by  his 
taking  upon  Himself  the  form  of  a  servant,  being  made  in  the  like- 
ness of  men.  (3.)  That  being  thus  incarnate,  or  found  in  fashion 
as  a  man,  He  humbled  Himself  by  being  obedient  unto  death,  even 

1  Loci  Theohgici,  iv.  vii.  121;  edit.  Tubingen,  1764,  vol.  iii.  p.  428. 


§5.]  fflS  DEATH   AND  BURIAL.  625 

the  death  of  the  cross.  In  this  matter,  as  characteristically  on  all 
other  points  of  cToctrine,  the  Reformed  Church  adheres  to  the  sim- 
ple statements  of  the  Scriptures,  and  abstains  from  the  attempt  to 
bring  those  doctrines  within  the  grasp  of  the  understanding. 

The  modern  theologians,  of  whom  Ebrard  is  a  representative,  in 
discarding  the  Church  doctrine  of  two  natures  (in  the  sense  of 
substances)  in  Christ,  and  in  making  the  incarnation  consist  in  a 
voluntary  self-limitation,  are  necessarily  led  into  a  theory  as  to  the 
humiliation  of  Christ  at  variance  with  both  the  Lutheran  and  Re- 
formed views  on  that  subject.  According  to  this  modern  doctrine 
the  Eternal  Son  of  God  did  not  assume  a  human  nature,  in  the 
Church  sense  of  those  words,  but  He  became  a  man.  His  infinite 
intellect  was  reduced  to  the  limits  of  the  intellect  of  human  intel- 
ligence, to  be  gradually  developed  as  in  the  case  of  other  men. 
His  omnipotence  was  reduced  to  the  limits  of  human  power.  His 
omnipresence  was  exchanged  for  limitation  to  a  definite  portion  of 
space.  He  did  not,  however,  as  stated  above,  when  treating  of  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  person,  cease  to  be  God.  According  to  this 
theory  the  incarnation  resulted,  as  Ebrard  says,^  "  In  Christ's 
being  a  man.  (1.)  So  far  as  his  will  is  concerned,  in  statu  integ- 
ritatis,  i.  e.,  as  Adam  was  before  the  fall,  in  a  state  to  choose  be- 
tween good  and  evil.  (2.)  So  far  as  natural  endowments  are  con- 
cerned, with  all   the   powers   pertaining  to  humanity,  which   lay 

undeveloped  in  the  first  Adam (3.)   And  as  concerns  his 

ability  dominant  over  the  laws  of  nature  in  the  present  disordered 
state  of  nature.  Thus  the  eternal  Son  of  God,"  he  says,  "  had 
reduced  himself,  so  that  as  God  he  willed,  having  assumed  the 
form  of  man,  to  exert  his  activity  only  as  man The  exer- 
cise of  omnipotence,  omniscience,  omnipresence,  ....  had  been 

to  renounce  his  humanity His  act  of  self-limitation  in  thus 

reducing  himself  to  the  limitations  of  humanity,  is  the  KeVwo-ts  ;  his 
voluntary  submission  to  pain,  shame,  and  death,  is  the  TaTretVwcrts 
spoken  of  by  the  Apostle  in  Philippians  ii.  6-8  :  but  both  are  in- 
cluded in  the  wider  sense  of  his  humiliation." 

1  Dogmalik,  ii.  ii.  359 ;  edit.  Konigsberg,  1852,  vol.  ii.  p.  32. 
VOL.  II.  40 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  EXALTATION   OF   CHRIST. 

According  to  our  standards  the  exaltation  of  Christ  includes, — 
(1.)  His  resurrection.     (2.)   His  ascension.     (3.)  His  sitting 

at  the  right  hand  of  God.     (4.)  His  coming  to  judge  the  world 

at  the  last  day. 

§  1.  Resurrection  of  Christ. 

The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  not  only  asserted  in  the  Scriptures, 
but  it  is  also  declared  to  be  the  fundamental  truth  of  the  gospel. 
"If  Christ  be  not  risen,"  says  the  Apostle,  "then  is  our  preach- 
ing vain,  and  your  faith  is  also  vain"  (1  Cor.  xv.  14).  "  If 
Christ  be  not  raised,  your  faith  is  vain  ;  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins  " 
(verse  17).  It  may  be  safely  asserted  that  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  is  at  once  the  most  important,  and  the  best  authenticated 
fact  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

(1.)  It  was  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament.  (2.)  It  was  fore- 
told by  Christ  Himself.  (3.)  It  was  a  fact  admitting  of  easy  veri- 
fication. (4.)  Abundant,  suitable,  and  frequently  repeated  evi- 
dence was  afforded  of  its  actual  occurrence.  (5.)  The  witnesses 
to  the  fact  that  Christ  was  seen  alive  after  his  death  upon  the 
cross,  were  numerous,  competent,  and  on  every  account  worthy  of 
confidence.  (6.)  Their  sincerity  of  conviction  was  proved  by  the 
sacrifices,  even  that  of  life,  which  their  testimony  entailed  upon 
them.  (7.)  Their  testimony  was  confirmed  by  God  bearing  wit- 
ness together  with  them  (^crvviTriixaprvpovvTos  rov  6eov,  Heb.  ii.  4),  in 
signs  and  wonders,  and  divers  miracles,  and  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  (8.)  That  testimony  of  the  Spirit  is  continued  to  the 
present  time  and  granted  to  all  the  true  children  of  God,  for  the 
Spirit  bears  witness  to  the  truth  in  the  heart  and  conscience.  (9.) 
The  fact  of  Christ^s  resurrection  has  been  commemorated  by  a 
religious  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  from  its  occur- 
rence to  the  present  time.  (10.)  The  effects  produced  by  his  gos- 
pel, and  the  change  which  it  has  effected  in  the  state  of  the  world, 
admit  of  no  other  rational  solution  than  the  truth  of  his  death  and 


I 


§  1.]  KESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST.  627 

subsequent  resurrection.     The  Christian  Church  is  his  monument. 
All  believers  are  his  witnesses. 

The  importance  of  Christ's  resurrection  arises,  — 

1.  From  the  circumstance  that  all  his  claims,  and  the  success  of 
his  work,  rest  on  the  fact  that  He  rose  again  from  the  dead.  If  He 
rose,  the  gospel  is  true.  If  He  did  not  rise,  it  is  false.  If  He  rose. 
He  is  the  Son  of  God,  equal  with  the  Father,  God  manifest  in  the 
flesh ;  the  Salvator  Hominum ;  the  Messiah  predicted  by  the 
prophets  ;  the  prophet,  priest,  and  king  of  his  people  ;  his  sacrifice 
has  been  accepted  as  a  satisfaction  to  divine  justice,  and  his  blood 
as  a  ransom  for  many. 

2.  On  his  resurrection  depended  the  mission  of  the  Spirit,  with- 
out which  Christ's  work  had  been  in  vain. 

3.  As  Christ  died  as  the  head  and  representative  of  his  people, 
his  resurrection  secures  and  illustrates  theirs.  As  He  lives,  they 
shall  live  also.  If  He  remained  under  the  power  of  death,  there 
is  no  source  of  spiritual  life  to  men  ;  for  He  is  the  vine,  we  are 
the  branches  ;  if  the  vine  be  dead  the  branches  must  be  dead 
also. 

4.  If  Christ  did  not  rise,  the  whole  scheme  of  redemption  is  a 
failure,  and  all  the  predictions  and  anticipations  of  its  glorious 
results  for  time  and  for  eternity,  for  men  and  for  angels  of  every 
rank  and  order,  are  proved  to  be  chimeras.  "  But  now  is  Christ 
risen  from  the  dead  and  become  the  first-fruits  of  them  that  slept." 
Therefore  the  Bible  is  true  from  Genesis  to  Revelation.  The 
kingdom  of  darkness  has  been  overthrown.  Satan  has  fallen  like 
lightning  from  heaven  ;  and  the  triumph  of  truth  over  error,  of 
good  ov§r  evil,  of  happiness  over  misery,  is  forever  secured. 

Nature  of  Chrisfs  Resurrection  Body. 

1.  The  identity  of  the  body  in  which  Christ  rose  with  that 
which  expired  upon  the  cross,  was  proved  by  indubitable  evidence. 
It  retained  even  the  print  of  the  nails  which  had  pierced  his  hands 
and  his  feet.  Nevertheless  it  was  changed.  To  what  extent,  how- 
ever, is  not  clearly  made  known.  Tiie  facts  recorded  in  the  sa- 
cred history  bearing  on  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  hodj  during  the 
period  between  his  resurrection  and  ascension  are,  (a.)  That 
it  was  not  at  first  clearly  recognized  as  the  same.  Mary  Magda- 
lene mistook  Him  for  the  gardener.  (John  xx.  15.)  The  two  dis- 
ciples whom  He  joined  on  their  way  to  Emmaus,  did  not  recognize 
Him  until  He  was  made  known  to  them  in  the  breaking  of  bread. 
(Luke  xxiv.  31.)    When  He  appeared  to  the  disciples  on  the  shore 


628     PART  m.     Ch.  Xin.  — the   exaltation   of   CHRIST. 

of  the  Sea  of  Tiberias  they  did  not  know  who  He  was,  until  the 
miraculous  draft  of  fishes  taken  at  his  command  revealed  Him. 
(John  xxi.  7.)  (6.)  It  appeared  suddenly  in  the  midst  of  his  dis- 
ciples in  a  room  of  which  the  doors  were  shut.  (John  xx.  19,  and 
Luke  xxiv.  36.)  (c.)  Nevertheless  it  was  the  same  material  body 
having  "  flesh  and  bones."  That  the  appearance  recorded  in 
Luke  xxiv,  36  was  preternatural  may  be  inferi'ed  from  the  effect 
which  it  produced  upon  the  disciples :  "  They  were  terrified  and 
affrighted,  and  supposed  that  they  had  seen  a  spirit."  Our  Lord 
reassured  them  saying,  "  Behold  my  hands  and  my  feet,  that  it  is  I 
myself:  handle  me,  and  see  ;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones 
as  ye  see  me  have."  It  appears  from  the  transfiguration  of  Christ 
that  his  body  while  here  on  earth,  was  capable  of  passing  from  one 
state  to  another  without  losing  its  identity. 

2.  Such  was  the  state  of  our  Lord's  body  during  the  forty  days 
subsequent  to  his  resurrection.  It  then  passed  into  its  glorified 
state.  What  that  state  is  we  know  only  so  far  as  may  be  learned 
from  what  the  Apostle  teaches  from  the  nature  of  the  bodies  with 
which  believers  are  to  be  invested  after  the  resui'rection.  Those 
bodies,  we  are  told,  are  to  be  like  Christ's  "  glorious  body." 
(Phil.  iii.  21.)  A  description  of  the  one  is  therefore  a  description 
of  the  other.  That  description  is  found  in  the  contrast  between 
the  present  body  and  that  which  the  believer  is  to  inhabit  after  the 
resurrection.  The  one  is  a  o-w/xa  ij/vxi-kov,  and  the  other  a  a-wfj-a  ttvcv- 
fiartKoy.  The  one  is  adapted  to  the  ij/vxv  (principle  of  animal  life) 
and  to  the  present  state  of  existence  ;  the  other  to  the  ■n-t'ev/xa 
(the  rational  and  immortal  principle)  and  to  the  future  state  of 
existence.  The  change  which  the  "  natural  body "  is  to  un- 
dergo in  becoming  a  "  spiritual  body  "  is  thus  described.  "  It  is 
sown  in  corruption  ;  it  is  raised  in  incorruption  :  it  is  sown  in  dis- 
honour ;  it  is  raised  in  glory :  it  is  sown  in  weakness ;  it  is  raised 
in  power:  "  in  one  word,  "  It  is  sown  a  natui'al  body ;  it  is  raised  a 
spiritual  body."  (1  Cor.  xv.  42-41.)  It  is  still  a  body  and  there- 
fore material,  retaining  all  the  essential  properties  of  matter.  It  is 
extended.  It  occupies  space.  It  has  a  definite  form,  and  that  a 
human  form.  It  was  seen  b}'  Paul  on  his  way  to  Damascus  and 
upon  other  occasions,  and  by  John  as  recorded  in  the  Apocalypse, 
as  well  as  by  the  dying  martyr  Stephen.  Nevertheless  it  is  no 
longer  "  flesh  and  blood,  "  for  "  flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the 
kingdom  of  God."  Flesh  and  blood  are  from  their  nature  corrup- 
tible;  and  so  the  apostle  adds,  "neither  doth  corruption  inherit  in- 
corruption."    Hence  "  this  corruptible  must  put   on  incorruption, 


§  1.]  RESURRECTION   OF   CHRIST.  629 

and  this  mortal  must  put  on  immortality."  (1  Cor.  xv.  50-53.) 
The  future  body  will  not  be  subject  to  the  wants,  the  infirmities, 
or  the  passions  which  belong  to  the  present  state  of  existence. 
"  In  the  resurrection  tliey  neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage, 
but  are  as  the  angels  of  God  in  heaven."  (Matt.  xxii.  30.)  The 
saints  are  to  be  like  angels,  not  in  being  incorporeal,  but  as  being 
immortal,  and  not  needing  reproduction  for  the  continuance  of 
their  race. 

The  risen  body  of  Christ,  therefore,  as  it  now  exists  in  heaven, 
although  retaining  its  identity  with  his  body  while  here  on  earth, 
is  glorious,  incorruptible,  immortal,  and  spiritual.  It  still  occupies 
a  definite  portion  of  space,  and  retains  all  the  essential  properties 
of  a  body. 

The  efficient  Agent  in  the  Resurrection  of  Christ. 

In  numerous  passages  of  Scripture  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord 
is  referred  to  God  as  God  or  to  the  Father.  The  same  person  who 
in  the  second  Psalm  says,  "  Thou  art  my  Son,"  is  addressed  in  the 
sixteenth  Psalm  by  that  Son,  "  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in 
hell  ;  neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thine  Holy  One  to  see  corruption." 
In  Romans  vi.  4,  it  is  said,  that  Christ  "  was  raised  up  from  the 
dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father  ;  "  so  also  in  Acts  ii.  24,  "  Whom 
God  hath  raised  up."  In  Acts  xiii.  30,  it  is  said,  "  God  raised  him 
from  the  dead."  So  in  Ephesians  i.  19,  20,  we  are  told  that  sin- 
ners are  converted  by  the  same  mighty  power  "  which  wrought 
in  Christ,  when  he  raised  him  from  the  dead."  In  other  passages, 
however,  it  is  said  to  be  the  work  of  Christ  himself.  Our  Lord 
speaking  of  his  body  said,  "  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three 
days  I  will  raise  it  up."  (John  ii.  19.)  And  again,  John  x.  17, 
18,  "  I  lay  down  my  life,  that  I  might  take  it  again.  No  man 
taketh  it  from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself;  I  have  power  to  lay 
it  down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again."  In  Romans  viii.  11, 
according  to  the  reading  adopted  by  Tischendorf,  the  resurrection 
of  Chi'ist  is,  constructively  at  least,  referred  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 
This  diverse  reference  of  the  same  act  to  the  several  persons  of 
the  Trinity  is  in  accordance  with  the  common  usage  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  three  persons  of  the  Godhead  being  the  same  in  sub- 
stance, the  act  of  the  one  ad  extra,  is  the  act  of  the  others.  Any 
external  divine  act,  i.  e.,  any  act  terminating  externally,  is  an  act 
of  the  Godhead  ;  and  therefore  may,  with  equal  propriety,  be  Be- 
ferred  to  either  of  the  divine  persons.  "  What  things  soever  he 
[the    Father]  doeth,  these  also  doeth   the   Son   likewise."     (John 


630    PART  m.     Ch.   XIII.  — the   exaltation    of   CHRIST. 

V.  19.)  All,  therefore,  that  the  Scriptures  teach  on  this  subject  is 
that  Christ  was  raised  by  the  divine  power.  The  Lutherans  hold 
that  Christ  rose  by  the  power  of  his  human  nature,  to  which  divine 
attributes  had,  in  the  act  of  incarnation,  been  communicated.  All 
the  miracles  of  Christ,  as  before  stated,  according  to  their  view  of 
his  person,  were  the  works  of  his  human  nature  distinctively,  and 
so  of  course  the  crowning  miracle  of  his  resurrection. 

§  2.  Ascension  of  Christ. 

The  next  step  in  the  exaltation  of  Christ  was  his  ascension  to 
heaven.  In  Mark  xvi.  19,  it  is  recorded  that  after  Jesus  had 
spoken  unto  his  disciples,  "  He  was  received  up  into  heaven."  In 
Luke  xxiv.  50,  51,  "  He  led  them  out  as  far  as  to  Bethany,  and  he 
lifted  up  his  hands,  and  blessed  them.  And  it  came  to  pass,  while 
he  blessed  them,  he  was  parted  from  them,  and  carried  up  into 
heaven."  The  most  detailed  account  of  our  Lord's  ascension  is 
found  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Acts.  Tiiere  the  last  words  of 
Christ  to  the  Apostles  are  recorded,  and  it  is  added,  "  When  he  had 
spoken  these  tilings,  while  they  beheld,  he  was  taken  up  ;  and  a 
cloud  received  him  out  of  their  sight.  And  while  they  looked 
steadfastly  toward  heaven,  as  he  went  up,  behold  two  men  stood 
by  them  in  white  apparel ;  which  also  said,  Ye  men  of  Galilee, 
why  stand  ye  gazing  up  into  heaven  ?  This  same  Jesus,  which  is 
taken  up  ffom  you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come  in  like  manner  as  ye 
have  seen  him  go  into  heaven."  (Acts  i.  9-11.)  From  these  ac- 
coiuits  it  appears,  (1.)  That  the  ascension  of  Christ  was  of  his 
whole  person.  It  was  the  Theanthropos,  the  Son  of  God  clothed 
in  our  nature,  having  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul,  who  as- 
cended. (2.)  That  the  ascension  was  visible.  The  disciples  wit- 
nessed the  whole  transaction.  They  saw  the  person  of  Christ 
gradually  rise  from  the  earth,  and  "  go  up  "  until  a  cloud  hid  Him 
from  their  view.  (3.)  It  was  a  local  transfer  of  his  person  from 
one  place  to  another  ;  from  earth  to  heaven.  Heaven  is  therefore 
a  place.  In  what  part  of  the  universe  it  is  located  is  not  revealed. 
But  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  it  is  a  definite  portion 
of  space  where  God  specially  manifests  his  presence,  and  where 
He  is  surrounded  by  his  angels  (who  not  being  infinite,  cannot  be 
ubiquitous),  and  by  the  spirits  of  the  just  made  perfect.  It  is  true 
that  the  word  "  heaven,"  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  is 
used  in  various  senses,  (1)  Sometimes  for  the  region  of  the  atmos- 
phere ;  as  when  the  Bible  speaks  of  the  clouds,  or  birds  of  heaven, 
or  of  the  rain  as   descending  from  heaven.     (2.)  Sometimes  for 


§  2.]  ASCENSION   OF   CHRIST.  631 

the  region  of  the  stars,  which  are  called  the  hosts  of  heaven. 
(3.)  Sometimes  it  means  a  state,  and  answers  to  some  of  the 
senses  of  the  phrase,  "  kingdom  of  heaven."  The  believer  is  said 
to  be  delivered  from  the  power  of  darkness,  and  translated  into  the 
kingdom  of  God's  dear  Son.  We  are  therefore  said  even  in  this 
world  to  be  "  in  heaven,"  as  in  Ephesians  ii.  6,  where  it  is  said, 
God  "  hath  raised  us  up  together  (with  Christ),  and  made  us  sit 
together  (eV  tois  £7rou/oaitots=  ev  tw  oipavw^  agreeably  to  the  constant 
usage  of  that  Epistle)  in  heavenly  places,"  ^.  e.,  in  heaven.  In  the 
same  sense  we  are  said  to  be,  "  the  citizens  of  heaven  ;  "  that  is, 
the  TToAt?  in  which  we  dwell,  and  to  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
which  we  are  entitled.  (Phil.  iii.  20.)^  The  Apostle's  words 
are,  rnxwv  to  TroXtTiv^xa  Iv  ovpavot.<i  vTrapx^i-,  "  Heaven  is  the  city 
of  which  we  are  the  citizens,  or,  in  which  is  our  citizenship." 
(4.)  But,  fourthly,  it  means  the  place  where  God  dwells,  where 
the  angels  and  the  spirits  of  the  just  are  congregated  ;  whence 
Christ  came,  and  to  which  He  has  returned.  He  told  his  disciples 
that  He  went  to  prepare  a  place  for  them.  (John  xiv.  2.)  In  this 
sense  the  word  is  used  when  the  Bible  speaks  of  God  as  our  Father 
"  in  Heaven  ;  "  or  of  heaven  as  his  throne,  his  temple,  his  dwell- 
ing place.  If  Christ  has  a  true  body,  it  must  occupy  a  definite 
portion  of  space.  And  where  Christ  is,  there  is  the  Christian's 
heaven. 

In  opposition  to  this  Scriptural  and  generally  accepted  view  of 
the  ascension  of  Christ,  as  a  transfer  from  one  place  to  another, 
from  the  earth,  as  one  sphere  of  the  universe,  to  heaven,  another, 
and  equally  definite  locality,  the  Lutherans  made  it  a  mere  change 
of  state,  of  which  chang-e  the  human  nature  of  Christ  was  the  sub- 
ject.  Prior  to  his  resurrection,  the  human  nature  of  our  Lord, 
although  really  possessed  of  the  attributes  of  omnipresence,  omnis- 
cience, and  omnipotence,  voluntarily  forbore  the  exercise  and  mani- 
festation of  these  divine  perfections.  His  ascension  was  his  enter- 
ing on  their  full  enjoyment  and  exercise.  He  passed  from  the 
condition  of  an  ordinary  man  to  being  as  a  man  (as  to  his  soul  and 
body)  everywhere  present,  and  everywhere  the  supreme  ruler. 
The  heaven  He  entered  is  immensity.  Thus  the  "  Form  of  Con- 
cord "  ^  says,  "  Ex  hac  unione  et  naturarum  communione  humana 
natura  habet  illam  exaltationem,  post  resurrectionem  a  mortuis, 
super  omnes  creaturas  in  coelo  et  in  terra,  quae  revera  nihil  aliud 
est,  quam  quod  Christus  formam  servi  prorsus  deposuit ;  hunianam 

1  See  Meyer  on  Philippians  iii.  20,  for  a  statement  of  his  view  on  this  subject. 

2  Art.  VIII.  26;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolici,  pp.  767,  768. 


632        PART  m.     Ch.   Xm.  -  exaltation    of   CHRIST. 

vero  naturam  non  deposuit,  sed  in  omnem  aBternitatem  retinet,  et 
ad  plenam  possessionem  et  divinae  majestatis  usurpationem  secun- 
dam  assumptam  humanam  naturam  evectus  est.  Earn  vero  majes- 
tatem  statim  in  sua  conceptione,  etiam  in  utero  matris  habuit :  sed 
ut  Apostolus  Phil.  ii.  8  [7],  loquitur,  seipsum  exinanivit,  eamque, 
ut  D.  Lutherus  docet,  in  statu  suse  humiliationis  secreto  habuit, 
neque  earn  semper,  sed  quoties  ipsi  visum  fuit,  usurpavit.  Jam 
vero,  postquam  non  communi  ratione,  ut  alius  quispiam  sanctus  in 
coelos  ascendit,  sed  ut  Apostolus,  Eph.  iv.  10,  testatur,  super  omnes 
coelos  ascendit,  et  revera  omnia  implet,  et  ubique  non  tantum  ut 
Deus,  verum  etiam  ut  homo,  praesens  dominatur  et  regnat  a  mari 
ad  mare  et  usque  ad  terminos  terrae."  Luther  argued  that  as 
God's  right  hand  at  which  Christ  in  his  glorified  body  sits,  is  every- 
where, so  that  body  must  be  everywhere.  In  the  "  Form  of  Con- 
cord "  ^  it  is  said,  Dextera  Dei  "  non  est  certus  aliquis  ....  locus, 
sed  nihil  aliud  est,  nisi  omnipotens  Dei  virtus,  quag  coelum  et  ter- 
ram  implet."  Gerhard  ^  presents  the  same  view,  "  Qualis  est  Dei 
dextra,  taliter  quoque  sessio  ad  dextram  Dei  intelHgenda.  Jam 
vero  dextra  Dei  non  est  locus  aliquis  corporeus,  circumscriptus, 
limitatus,  definitus,  sed  est  infinita  Dei  potestas  ac  praesentissima 
ejus  majestas  in  coelo  et  terra,  est  praBsentissimum  illud  dominium, 
quo  Deus  omnia  conservat  et  gubernat."  Whence  it  is  inferred 
that  the  soul  and  body  of  Christ  must  have  a  like  ubiquity.  The 
omnipresence  of  God,  however,  is  not  to  be  conceived  of  as  infi- 
nite extension,  for  extension  is  a  property  of  matter ;  so  the  Lu- 
theran theologians  do  not  hold  the  infinite  extension  of  the  body 
of  Christ.  They  merely  say  that  He  is  present  as  God  is  present 
everywhere  in  knowledge  and  power.  But  a  thing  cannot  act  where 
it  is  not;  and  therefore  omnipresence  of  knowledge  and  power  im- 
plies omnipresence  as  to  substance.  And  consequently  as  Christ 
in  both  natures  is  everywhere  active.  He  must  in  both  natures  be 
everywhere  present.  Augustine  found  occasion  to  write  against 
this  notion  of  the  ubiquity  of  the  humanity  of  Christ,  even  in  his 
age  of  the  Church,  "  Noli  itaque  dubitare,  ibi  nunc  esse  hominem 
Christum  Jesum,  unde  venturus  est.  .  .  .  Et  sic  venturus  est,  ilia 
angelica  voce  testante,  quemadmodum  ire  visus  est  in  coelum,  i.  e., 
in  eadem  carnis  forma  atque  substantia;  cui  profecto  immortalita- 
tem  dedit,  naturam  non  abstulit.  Secundum  banc  formam  non  est 
putandus  ubique  difFusns.  Cavendum  est  enim  ne  ita  divinitatem 
astruamus  hominis  ut  veritatem  corporis  auferamus.    Non  est  autem 

1  Art.  vui.  28;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolici,  p.  7fi8. 

2  Loci  Theologici,  iv.  xii.  220,  vol.  iii.  pp.  509,  510. 


§2.]  ASCENSION   OF   CHRIST.  633 

consequens  ut  quod  in  Deo  est,  ita  sit  ubique,  ut  Deus  ^  .  .  .  Nam 
spatia  locorum  tolle  corporibus,  nusquam  erunt,  et  quia  nusquam 
erunt,  nee  erunt.  Tolle  ipsa  corpora  qualitatibus  corporum,  non 
erit  ubi  sint,  et  ideo  necesse  est  ut  non  sint  ^  .  .  .  Christum  autem 
Dominum  nostrum  unigenitum  Dei  filium  aequalem  Patri,  eundem- 
que  hominis  filium  quo  major  est  Pater,  et  ubique  totum  praesen- 
tem  esse  non  dubites  tanquam  Deum,  et  in  eodem  templo  Dei  esse 
tanquarn  inhabitantem  Deum,  et  in  loco  aliquo  coeli  propter  veri 
corporis  modum."  ^ 

The  modern  theory  which  makes  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of 
God  to  consist  in  his  laying  aside  "  the  existence-form  "  of  God, 
and,  by  a  process  of  self-limitation  assuming  that  of  a  man,  of 
necessity  modifies  the  view  taken  of  his  exaltation  and  ascension. 
That  ascension  is  admitted  to  be  a  transfer  from  one  portion  of 
space  to  another,  from  earth  to  heaven.  It  is  also  admitted  that 
our  Lord  now  as  a  man  occupies  a  definite  portion  of  space.  He  is 
as  to  his  human  nature  in  one  place  and  not  everywhere.  But  his 
present  existence-form  is  still  human  and  only  human.  On  this 
point  Ebrard  says.  That  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God  became  a 
human  soul,  and  formed  itself  a  body  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  and  was  born  of  her  as  a  man.  In  the  human  nature  thus 
assumed  there  were  two  elements.  The  one  including^  all  the  es- 
sentials  of  humanity  without  which  man  is  no  longer  man.  The 
other  includes  only  what  is  accidental  and  variable  ;  as  for  example, 
weakness,  subjection  to  death,  and  other  evils  consequent  on  sin. 
All  these  on  his  ascension  he  laid  aside,  and  now  dwells  in  heaven 
as  a  glorified  man  (verkliirter  Mensch).  He  has  laid  aside  forever 
the  existence-form  of  God,  and  assumed  that  of  man  in  perpetuity, 
in  which  form  by  his  Spirit  He  governs  the  Church  and  the  world. 
Locally,  therefore.  He  is  absent  from  the  world,  but  He  is  dynamic- 
ally present  to  all  his  people  in  his  present  human  existence-form. 
On  this  last  mentioned  point  he  quotes  with  approbation  the  lan- 
guage of  Polanus  :  *  "  Ideo  corpus  Ciiristi  non  est  jam  in  terra, 
nedum  ubique.  Etsi  autem  Christus  corpore  suo  non  sit  jam  in 
terra,  tamen  est  etiam  conjunctus  et  praesens  corpori  nostro  secun- 
dum carnem,  sed  non  loco ;  sicut  caput  uniuscujusque  hominis 
non  est  eo  loco  quo  pedes,  et  tamen  est  illis  suo  modo  unitum. 
Proinde  adest  Christus  ecclesise  suae  non  tantum  secundum  divi- 
nam  sed  etiam  secundum  humanam  naturam,  verum  spiritualiter, 

1  Epistola  CLXxxvii.  (57)  [iii.]  10,  ad  Dardanum,  Woi-ks\  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris,  1836, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  1021,  d,  1022,  a.  ^ 

2  Ibid.  vi.  18;  p.  1025,6. 

2  Ibid.  vi.  18:  ])    1025,  e.  "  Ibid.  xiii.  V  \  p.  1038,  a. 

*  Syntagma  Tlieologia,  VI.,  xxv.  edit.  Francofurti  et  Hanoviae,  1655,  p.  762,  a. 


634       PART   III.     Ch.   Xm.  —  exaltation   of   CHRIST. 

sicut  caput  membris,  quibus  unitum  est  et  quae  vivificat."  This 
dynamic  presence  of  Ciirist  as  to  his  liuman  nature  and  even  as 
to  his  body,  which  Calvin  asserted  in  reference  to  the  Lord's 
Suj)per,  has  no  special  connection  with  Ebrard's  doctrine  of  the 
incarnation.  It  is  held  by  those  who  believe  that  the  Eternal  Son 
of  God  became  man  by  taking  to  Himself  a  true  body  and  a  rea- 
sonable soul,  and  so  was,  and  continueth  to  be  God  and  man  in 
two  distinct  natures,  and  one  person  forever.  The  doctrine  in 
question  has  no  doubt  a  form  of  truth  in  it.  We  are  present  with 
Christ,  in  a  certain  sense,  in  reference  to  his  human,  as  well  as  in 
reference  to  his  divine  nature.  The  person  to  whom  we  are 
present,  or,  who  is  present  with  us,  is  theanthropic.  We  have  all 
the  advantage  of  his  human  sympathy  and  affection  ;  and  the  form 
of  divine  life  which  we  derive  from  Him  comes  from  Him  as  God 
still  clothed  in  our  nature.  All  this  may  be  admitted  without  ad- 
mitting that  the  Eternal  Son  "  became  a  human  soul ;  "  that  He 
laid  aside  the  existence-form  of  God,  and  assumed  for  eternity,  that 
of  man.  If  this  be  so,  then  He  is  a  man  and  nothing  more.  If 
an  adult  man,  by  a  process  of  self-limitation,  or  self-contraction,  as- 
sumes the  existence-form  of  an  infant,  he  is  an  infant,  and  ceases 
to  be  an  adult  man.  If  he  assumes  the  existence-form  of  an 
idiot,  he  is  an  idiot  ;  or  of  a  brute,  he  has  only  the  instincts  and 
sagacity  of  a  brute.  If,  therefore,  the  Logos  became  man  by  self- 
contraction,  He  is  no  longer  God. 

According  to  the  teaching  of  Scripture  the  ascension  of  Christ 
was  necessary,  — 

1.  In  the  first  place  He  came  from  heaven.  Heaven  was 
his  home.  It  was  the  appropriate  sphere  of  his  existence.  His 
presence  makes  heaven,  and  therefore  until  this  earth  is  purified 
from  all  evil,  and  has  undergone  its  great  process  of  regeneration, 
so  as  to  become  a  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  this  world  is  not 
suited  for  the  Redeemer's  abode  in  his  state  of  exaltation. 

2.  It  was  necessary  that  as  our  High  Priest  He  should,  after 
offering  Himself  as  a  sacrifice,  pass  through  the  heavens,  to  appear 
before  God  in  our  behalf.  An  essential  part,  and  that  a  perma- 
nent one,  of  his  priestly  office  was  to  be  exercised  in  heaven.  He 
there  makes  constant  intercession  for  his  people.  As  He  died  for 
our  sins,  He  rose  for  our  justification.  All  this  was  typified  under 
the  old  dispensation.  The  victim  was  slain  without  in  the  court 
of  the  temple  ;  the  high  priest  bore  the  blood  with  much  incense 
within  the  veil  and  sprinkled  it  on  the  Mercy  Seat.  What  the 
liigh  priest  did  in  the  earthly  temple,  it  was  necessary  for  the  High 


§3.]    CHRIST'S   SESSION   AT  THE  RIGHT   HAND  OF   GOD.    635 

Priest  of  our  profession  to  do  in  the  temple  made  without  hands, 
eternal  in  the  heavens.  This  is  set  forth  with  all  clearness  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

3.  It  was  expedient,  our  Lord  said,  that  He  should  go  away ; 
"  for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you  ; 
but  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  him  unto  you."  (John  xvi.  7.)  It  was 
necessary  that  redemption  should  not  only  be  acquired  but  applied. 
Men  if  left  to  themselves  would  have  remained  in  their  sins,  and 
Christ  had  died  in  vain.  The  great  blessing  which  the  prophets 
predicted  as  characteristic  of  the  Messianic  period,  was  the  effusion 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  To  secure  that  blessing  for  the  Church  his 
ascension  was  necessary.  He  was  exalted  to  give  I'epentance  and 
the  remission  of  sins  ;  to  gather  his  people  from  all  nations  and 
during  all  ages  until  the  work  was  accomplished.  His  throne  in 
the  heavens  was  the  proper  place  whence  the  work  of  saving  men, 
through  the  merits  of  his  death,  was  to  be  carried  on. 

4.  Again  our  Lord  told  his  sorrowing  disciples,  "  I  go  to  prepare 
a  place  for  you.  And  if  I  go  and  prepare  a  place  for  you,  I  will 
come  again  and  receive  you  unto  myself;  that  where  I  am,  there 
ye  may  be  also."  (John  xiv.  2,  3.)  His  ascension,  therefore, 
was  necessary  for  the  completion  of  his  work. 

§  3.  Sitting  at  the  Right  Hand  of  Grod. 

This  is  the  next  step  in  the  exaltation  of  our  Lord.  He  rose 
from  the  dead,  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sat  down  at  the  right 
hand  of  God  ;  that  is,  was  associated  with  Him  in  glory  and  do- 
minion. The  subject  of  this  exaltation  was  the  Theantliropos ; 
not  the  Logos  specially  or  distinctively  ;  not  the  human  nature 
exclusively ;  but  the  theantliropic  person.  When  a  man  is  ex- 
alted It  is  not  the  soul  in  distinction  from  the  body  ;  nor  the  body 
in  distinction  from  the  soul,  but  the  whole  person. 

The  ground  of  Christ's  exaltation  is  twofold  :  the  possession  of 
divine  attributes  by  which  He  was  entitled  to  divine  honour  and 
was  qualified  to  exercise  absolute  and  universal  dominion ;  and 
secondly,  his  mediatorial  work.  Both  these  are  united  in  Hebrews 
i.  3.  It  is  there  said,  that  Christ  "  sat  down  on  the  right  liand  of 
the  Majesty  on  high  ;  "  first  (wv,  being,  i.  e.),  because  He  is  the 
brightness  of  the  Father's  glory  and  his  express  Image,  and  sustains 
the  universe  by  the  word  of  his  power ;  and  secondly,  because  by 
the  sacrifice  of  Himself,  He  made  purification  for  our  sins.  So  also 
in  Philippians  ii.  6-11,  where  we  are  taught  that  it  was  He  who 
existed  In  the  form  of  God  and  was  equal  with  God,  who  humbled 


636        PART  III.     Ch.   XIIL  — exaltation    OF   CHRIST. 

Himself  to  be  obedient  unto  death  even  the  death  of  the  cross,  and 
therefore,  for  tliose  two  reasons,  "  God  also  hath  highly  exalted 
him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name  :  that  at 
the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven, 
and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth."  In  Ephesians  i. 
20-22,  it  is  saifl,  God  raised  Christ  from  the  dead  "  and  set  him  at 
liis  own  right  hand  in  the  heavenly  places,  far  above  all  princi- 
pality, and  power,  and  might,  and  dominion,  and  every  name  that 
is  named,  not  only  in  this  world,  but  also  in  that  which  is  to  come  ; 
and  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet."  This  latter  passage,  taken 
from  the  eighth  Psalm,  is  repeatedly  quoted  to  prove  the  absolutely 
universal  dominion  of  the  risen  Saviour,  as  in  Hebrews  ii.  8 : 
"  In  that  he  put  all  in  subjection  under  him,  he  left  nothing  that 
is  not  put  under  him."  And  also  1  Corinthians  xv.  27,  when  it  is 
said,  "  All  things  are  put  under  him,  it  is  manifest  that  he  is  ex- 
cepted, which  did  put  all  things  under  him."  No  creature  there- 
fore is  excepted.  This  also  is  what  our  Lord  Himself  teaches, 
•when  He  says,  "  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in 
earth."  (Matt,  xxviii.  18.)  Heaven  and  earth  in  Scriptural  lan- 
guage, is  the  whole  universe.  In  1  Peter  iii.  22,  it  is  said,  "  Who 
is  gone  into  heaven,  and  is  on  the  right  hand  of  God  ;  angels  and 
authorities  and  powers  (z.  e.,  all  rational  creatures)  being  made  sub- 
ject unto  him."  In  the  prophetic  books  of  the  Old  Testament  it 
was  predicted  that  the  Messiah  should  be  invested  with  this  uni- 
versal dominion.  (See  Ps.  ii.,  xlv.,  Ixxii.,  ex.  ;  Isa.  ix.  67  ;  Dan. 
vii.  14,  etc.)  That  such  authority  and  power  could  not  be  in- 
trusted to  a  mere  creature  is  plain  from  the  nature  of  the  case. 
Divine  perfections,  omniscience,  omnipotence,  and  omnipresence,  as 
well  as  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness,  are  requisite  for  the  effectual 
and  righteous  administration  of  a  dominion  embracing  all  orders 
of  beings,  all  creatures  rational  and  irrational,  extending  over  the 
reason  and  conscience  as  well  as  over  the  external  world.  On  this 
point  the  Scriptures  are  explicit.  They  teach  expressly  that  to  no 
angel,  i.  <?.,  to  no  rational  creature,  as  the  term  angel  includes  all 
intelligences  higher  than  man,  hath  God  ever  said,  "  Sit  on  my 
right  hand."  (Heb.  i.  IJ^.)  All  angels,  all  rational  creatures,  are 
commanded  to  worship  Him. 

This  universal  dominion  is  exercised  by  the  Theanthropos.  It 
is  vain  for  us  to  speculate  on  the  relation  of  the  divine  and  human 
natures  in  the  acts  of  this  supreme  ruler.  We  cannot  understand 
the  relation  between  the  soul  and  the  body  in  the  voluntary  exer- 
cises in  which  both  are  agents,  as  when  we  write  or  speak.     We 


§  2.]     CHRIST'S  SESSION  AT  THE  RIGHT  HAND  OF  GOD.      637 

know  that  such  acts  are  neither  exclusively  mental  nor  exclusively 
corporeal  ;  but  how  the  two  elements  are  combined,  passes  our 
comprehension.  It  is  most  unreasonable,  therefore,  and  presumptu- 
ous, for  us  to  endeavour  to  make  intelligible  to  our  feeble  under- 
standings, how  tlie  divine  and  human  in  the  person  of  our  Lord, 
cooperate  in  full  accordance  with  the  nature  of  each.  In  the  case 
of  our  own  voluntary  exercises,  we  know  that  the  attributes  of  the 
mind  are  not  transferred  to  the  body  ;  much  less  are  those  of  the 
body  transferred  to  the  mind.  In  like  manner  we  know  that  the 
attributes  of  Christ's  divine  nature  are  not  transferred  to  his  hu- 
man nature,  nor  those  of  his  humanity  to  his  divinity.  It  is  enough 
for  us  to  know  that  this  supreme  ruler  of  the  universe  is  a  perfect 
man  as  well  as  a  perfect  God ;  that  He  still  has  all  human  sym- 
pathies and  affections,  and  can  be  touched  with  a  sense  of  our 
infirmities.  That  a  person  in  whom  dwells  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily,  and  who  is  filled  with  all  the  love,  tenderness, 
compassion,  meekness,  and  forbearance,  which  Christ  manifested 
while  here  on  earth,  has  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  committed 
to  his  hands,  and  is  not  far  from  any  one  of  us,  is  an  unspeakable 
delight  to  all  his  people. 

In  this  exaltation  of  Christ  to  supreme  dominion  was  fulfilled  the 
prediction  of  the  Psalmist,  as  the  organ  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  that 
all  things,  the  whole  uitiverse,  according  to  the  interpretation  of 
the  Apostle  as  given  in  Hebrews  ii.  8,  and  1  Corinthians  xv.  27, 
were  to  be  put  under  subjection  to  man.  In  the  former  j)assage 
the  Apostle  argues  thus:  The  world  to  come  of  which  he  spoke, 
i.  e.,  the  gospel  dispensation,  the  world  during  the  Messianic  period, 
was  not  put  under  subjection  to  angels,  for  the  Scriptures  say  that 
all  things  are  put  under  man.  And  when  it  is  said  all  things  (ra 
Travra)  are  put  under  Him,  nothing  is  excej)ted.  We  do  not  yet, 
however,  see  all  things  put  under  man  as  man  ;  but  we  do  see  the 
man  Christ  Jesus,  on  account  of  the  suffering  of  death,  crowned 
with  this  absolutely  universal  dominion.  It  is,  therefore,  at  the 
feet  of  a  man  in  whom  dwells  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead,  that  all 
principalities  and  powers  bow  themselves  in  willing  subjection  and 
adoring  love.  And  it  is  at  the  feet  of  this  once  crucified  man  that 
all  the  redeemed  are  to  cast  down  their  crowns. 

This  absolute  dominion  has  been  committed  to  Christ  as  medi- 
ator. He  who  is  over  all  is  the  head  of  the  Church  ;  it  is  for  the 
Church,  for  the  consummation  of  the  work  of  redemption  that  as 
the  God-man  He  has  been  thus  exalted  over  all  created  beings. 
(Eph.  i.  22 ;  Col.  i.  17, 18  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  25-28.)    Having  been  com- 


638     PART  in.    Ch.  xni.  —  exaltation  of  christ. 

mitted  to  Him  for  a  special  purpose,  this  universal  dominion  as 
Mediator  will  be  relinquished  when  that  purpose  is  accomplished. 
He  will  reign  until  all  his  enemies  are  put  under  his  feet.  And 
when  the  last  enemy  is  subdued  He  will  deliver  up  this  kingdom 
unto  the  Father,  and  reign  forever  as  King  over  the  redeemed. 

§  4.   Chrisfs  coming  to  judge  the  World. 

This  is  the  last  step  in  his  exaltation.  He  who  was  arraigned  as 
a  criminal  at  the  bar  of  Pilate  ;  who  was  unrighteously  condemned, 
and  who  amid  cruel  mockings,  was  crucified  with  malefactors,  is  to 
come  again  with  power  and  great  glory ;  before  Him  are  to  be 
gathered  all  nations  and  all  the  generations  of  men,  to  receive  from 
his  lips  their  final  sentence.  He  will  then  be  exalted  before  all 
intelligences,  as  visibly  their  sovereign  judge. 

What  the  Scriptures  teach  on  this  subject  is,  (1.)  That  Christ 
is  to  come  again.  (2.)  That  this  coming  is  to  be  personal,  visible, 
and  glorious.  (3.)  That  the  object  of  his  second  advent  is  to 
judge  the  world.  (4.)  That  the  persons  to  be  judged  are  the 
quick  and  the  dead,  i.  e.,  those  then  alive  and  those  who  died  be- 
fore his  appearing.  (5.)  That  the  rule  of  judgment  will  be  the 
law  of  God,  either  as  written  on  the  heart  or  as  revealed  in  his 
Word.  Those  havincj  the  written  revelation  will  be  iudged  by  it: 
those  who  have  had  no  such  external  revelation,  will  be  judged 
according  to  the  light  they  have  actually  enjoyed.  (6.)  That  the 
ground  of  judgment  will  be  the  deeds  done  in  the  body.  (7.)  That 
the  sentence  to  be  pronounced  will  be  final,  fixing  the  destiny  of 
those  concerned  for  eternity. 

This  whole  subject  belongs  to  the  department  of  Eschatology,  to 
which  its  more  detailed  consideration  must  be  deferred.  It  is  in- 
troduced here  simply  as  connected  with  the  exaltation  of  Christ, 
of  which  it  is  to  be  the  culminating  point. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

VOCATION. 

§  1.  Scriptural  Usage  of  the  Word. 

The  Scriptures  clearly  teach  that  the  several  persons  of  the 
adorable  Trinity  sustain  an  economical  relation  to  the  work  of 
man's  redemption.  To  the  Father  is  referred  the  plan  itself,  the 
selection  of  its  objects,  and  the  mission  of  the  Son  to  carry  the 
gracious  purpose  into  effect.  To  the  Son,  the  accomplishment  of 
all  that  is  requisite  to  render  the  salvation  of  sinful  men  consistent 
with  the  perfections  and  law  of  God,  and  to  secure  the  final  re- 
demption of  those  given  to  Him  by  the  Father.  The  special  work 
of  the  Spirit  is  the  application  of  the  redemption  purchased  by 
Christ.  Such  is  the  condition  of  men  since  the  ftill,  that  if  left  to 
themselves  they  would  continue  in  their  rebellion  and  refuse  the 
offers  of  reconciliation  with  God.  Christ  then  had  died  in  vain. 
To  secure  the  accomplishment  of  the  promise  that  He  should  "  see 
of  the  travail  of  his  soul  and  be  satisfied,"  the  Holy  Spirit  so  oper- 
ates on  the  chosen  people  of  God,  that  they  are  brought  to  repent- 
ance and  faith,  and  thus  made  heirs  of  eternal  life,  through  Jesus 
Christ  their  Lord. 

This  work  of  the  Spirit  is  in  the  Scriptures  called  Vocation.  It 
is  one  of  the  many  excellences  of  the  Reformed  Theology  that  it 
retains,  as  far  as  possible,  Scriptural  terms  for  Scriptural  doctrines. 
It  is  proper  that  this  should  be  done.  Words  and  thoughts  are  so 
intimately  related  that  to  change  the  former,  is  to  modify,  more  or 
less  seriously,  the  latter.  And  as  the  words  of  Scripture  are  the 
words  of  the  Spirit,  it  is  becoming  and  important  that  they  should 
be  retained. 

The  act  of  the  Spirit  by  which  men  are  brought  into  saving 
union  with  Christ,  is  expressed  by  the  word  kX^o-i?,  vocation.  As 
in  Hebrews  iii.  1,  "  Partakers  of  the  heavenly  calling."  Ephesians 
i.  18,  "  Hope  of  his  calling."  Ephesians  iv.  1,  "Walk  worthy  of 
the  vocation  wherewith  ye  are  called."  Ephesians  iv.  4,  "  In  one 
hope  of  your  calling."  2  Timothy  i.  9,  "Hath  ....  called  us 
with  an  holy  calling."    2  Peter  i.  10,  "  Make  your  calHng  and  elec- 


640  PART  m.   Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

tion  sure,"  etc.,  etc.  The  verb  used  to  express  this  act  of  the 
Spirit  is  KaXeiv,  to  call.  Romans  viii.  30  :  "  Whom  he  did  predes- 
tinate, them  he  also  called :  and,  whom  he  called,  them  he  also 
justified."  Also  Romans  ix.  11  and  24.  1  Corinthians  i.  9:  "By 
whom  ye  were  called  unto  the  fellowship  of  his  Son."  Verse  26 : 
"  Ye  see  your  calling  brethren,  how  that  not  many  wise  men  after 
the  flesh,  not  many  mighty,  not  many  noble,  are  called."  Gala- 
tians  i.  6 :  "  Him  that  called  you."  Verse  15,  "  It  pleased  God, 
who  separated  me  from  my  mother's  womb,  and  called  me  by  his 
grace."  1  Thessalonians  ii.  12,  "  Who  hath  called  you  unto  his 
kingdom  and  glory."  1  Thessalonians  v.  24,  "  Faithful  is  he  that 
calleth  you."  2  Thessalonians  ii.  14,  "  Whereunto  he  called  you 
by  our  gospel,  to  the  obtaining  of  the  glory  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  1  Peter  ii.  9,  "  Who  hath  called  you  out  of  darkness 
into  his  marvellous  light."  1  Peter  v.  10,  "  Who  hath  called  us 
unto  his  eternal  glory  by  Christ  Jesus."  2  Peter  i.  3,  "  Through 
the  knowledge  of  him  that  hath  called  us  to  glory  and  virtue." 

Those  who  are  the  subjects  of  this  saving  influence  of  the  Spirit, 
are  designated  "  the  called."  Romans  i.  6,  "  The  called  of  Jesus 
Christ."  Romans  viii.  28,  "  To  them  who  are  the  called  accord- 
ino-  to  his  purpose."  To  one  class  of  the  hearers  of  the  gospel, 
the  Apostle  says  (1  Cor.  i.  24),  Christ  is  a  stumbling-block, 
and  to  another  foolishness,  "  but  unto  them  which  are  called,  both 
Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ  the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of 
God."  Jude  addresses  his  epistle  to  the  "  preserved  in  Jesus 
Christ,  and  called."  "  The  called,''  and  "  the  elect,"  ol  kXtjtol  and 
01  ckXcktoi,  are  convertible  terms.  Revelation  xvii.  14,  "  The  Lamb 
....  is  the  Lord  of  lords,  and  King  of  kings  :  and  they  that  are 
with  him  are  called,  and  chosen  (/cAr/roi,  koI  ckXcktoi),  and  faithful." 
So  in  1  Corinthians  i.  26,  27,  Paul  says,  "  Not  many  wise  .... 
are  called:  but  God  hath  chosen  the  foolish  ....  to  confound 
the  wise."  In  Hebrews  ix.  15,  it  is  said  that  Christ  "  is  the  medi- 
ator of  the  New  Testament,  that  ....  they  which  are  called 
might  receive  the  promise  of  eternal  inheritance." 

Such  then  is  the  established  usage  of  Scripture.  It  is  by  a  di- 
vine call,  that  sinners  are  made  partakers  of  the  benefits  of  redemp- 
tion. And  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  by  which  they  are  trans- 
lated from  the  kingdom  of  darkness  into  the  kingdom  of  God's 
dear  Son,  is  a  vocation,  or  effectual  calling.  The  ground  of  this 
usage  is  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptural  idea  of  God  and  of  his  rela- 
tion to  the  world.  He  speaks  and  it  is  done.  He  said,  Let  there 
be  light,  and  light  was.     He  calls  the  things  that  are  not,  and  they 


§  2.]  THE   EXTERNAL   CALL.  641 

are.  All  effects  of  his  power  are  produced  by  a  word.  As  in  the 
external  world  He  created  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power ;  so 
all  effects  in  the  moral  or  spiritual  world  are  accomplished  by  a 
volition  or  a  command.  To  call,  therefore,  in  Scriptural  language, 
is  to  effect,  to  cause  to  be,  or  to  occur.  There  are  two  things  in- 
volved in  this  form  of  expression.  The  one  is,  that  God  is  the 
author  or  cause  of  the  effect,  which  occurs  in  consequence  of  his 
call  or  command.  The  other  is,  that  the  efficiency  to  which  the 
effect  is  due  is  not  in  second  causes.  God  in  such  cases  may  work 
with  means  or  without  them,  but  in  either  event  it  is  not  through 
them.  In  creation  and  miracles,  for  example,  there  is  neither  in-^ 
tervention  nor  concomitancy  of  causes.  God  spoke  (or  willed), 
and  the  universe  was.  Our  Lord  said,  Lazarus  come  forth,  and 
Lazarus  lived.  He  said  to  the  leper,  I  will,  be  thou  clean.  When 
He  put  clay  on  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man  and  bade  him  wash  in 
the  pool  of  Siloam,  the  restoration  of  sight  was  in  no  degree  due 
to  the  properties  of  the  clay  or  of  the  water.  It  was  as  truly  the 
effect  of  the  immediate  divine  efficiency,  as  raising  the  dead  by  a 
word.  When,  therefore,  the  Scriptures  ascribe  that  subjective 
change  in  the  sinner  by  which  he  becomes  a  new  creature,  to  the 
call  of  God,  it  teaches  that  the  effect  is  due  not  to  natural  or  moral 
causes,  or  to  the  man's  own  agency,  but  simply  to  the  power  of 
God.  Hence,  as  just  said,  to  call  is  frequently  in  the  Bible,  to 
effect,  to  cause  to  be.  A  people  or  an  individual  becomes  by  the 
call  of  God  that  which  the  people  or  person  is  called  to  be.  When 
God  called  the  Hebrews  to  be  his  people,  they  became  his  people. 
When  a  man  was  called  to  be  a  prophet,  he  became  a  prophet. 
When  Paul  was  called  to  be  an  apostle,  he  became  an  apostle. 
And  those  called  to  be  saints  become  saints. 

§  2.   The  External  Oall 

The  Scriptures,  however,  distinguish  between  this  effectual  call 
and  the  external  call  addressed  in  the  Word  of  God  to  all  to  whom 
that  word  is  made  known.  In  this  sense  "  many  are  called  but 
few  are  chosen."  God  said  by  his  prophet  (Isa.  Ixv.  12),  "  When 
I  called,  ye  did  not  answer."  And  our  Lord  said,  "I  am  not  come 
to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  repentance."      (Matt.  ix.  13.) 

This  external  call  includes,  (1.)  A  declaration  of  the  plan  of 
salvation.  (2.)  The  promise  of  God  to  save  all  who  accede  to  the 
terms  of  that  plan.  (3.)  Command,  exhortation,  and  invitation  to 
all  to  accept  of  the  offered  mercy.  (4.)  An  exhibition  of  the 
reasons  which  should  constrain  men  to  repent  and  believe,  and  thus 

VOL.  II.  4x 


642  PART   III.     Ch.   XIV.  —  vocation. 

escape  from  the  wrath  to  come.  All  this  is  included  in  the  gospel. 
For  the  gospel  is  a  revelation  of  God's  plan  of  saving  sinners.  It 
contains  the  ])roniise,  Whosoever  shall  call  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord  shall  be  saved.  Whosoever  cometh  unto  me  I  will  in  no 
wise  cast  out.  In  the  gospel  God  commands  all  men  everywhere 
to  repent  and  to  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  In  the  gospel 
men  are  not  only  commanded  but  exhorted  to  return  unto  God  in 
the  way  of  his  appointment.  Turn  ye,  turn  ye,  for  why  will  ye 
die,  is  the  language  which  it  addresses  to  all  to  whom  its  message 
comes.  Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man 
his  thoughts  :  and  let  him  return  unto  the  Lord,  and  He  will  have 
mei'cy  upon  him  ;  and  to  our  God,  for  He  will  abundantly  pardon. 
Look  unto  me  all  ye  ends  of  the  earth  and  be  ye  saved.  The 
gospel  moreover  addresses  the  reason,  the  conscience,  the  feelings, 
the  hopes  and  the  fears  of  men  ;  and  presents  every  consideration 
which  should  determine  rational  and  immortal  beings  to  comply 
with  its  gracious  invitations. 

This  call  is  universal  in  the  sense  that  it  is  addressed  to  all  men 
indiscriminately  to  whom  the  gospel  is  sent.  It  is  confined  to  no 
age,  nation,  or  class  of  men.  It  is  made  to  the  Jew  and  Gentile, 
to  Barbarians  and  Scythians,  bond  and  free  ;  to  the  learned  and  to 
the  ignorant;  to  the  righteous  and  to  the  wicked  ;  to  the  elect  and 
to  the  non-elect.  This  follows  from  its  nature.  Being  a  ])rocla- 
mation  of  the  terms  on  which  God  is  willing  to  save  sinners,  and 
an  exhibition  of  the  duty  of  fallen  men  in  relation  to  that  plan,  it 
of  necessity  binds  all  those  who  are  in  the  condition  which  the  plan 
contemplates.  It  is  in  this  respect  analogous  to  the  moral  law. 
That  law  is  a  revelation  of  the  duties  binding  all  men  in  virtue  of 
their  relation  to  God  as  their  Creator  and  moral  Governor.  It 
promises  the  divine  favour  to  the  obedient,  and  threatens  wrath  to 
the  disobedient.  It  therefore  of  necessity  applies  to  all  who  sustain 
the  relation  of  rational  and  moral  creatures  to  God.  So  also  the 
gospel  being  a  revelation  of  the  relation  of  fallen  men  to  God  as 
reconciling  the  world  unto  Himself,  comes  to  all  belonging  to  the 
class  of  fallen  men. 

The  Scriptures,  therefore,  in  the  most  explicit  terms  teach  that 
the  external  call  of  the  gospel  is  addressed  to  all  men.  The  com- 
mand of  Christ  to  his  Church  was  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature.  Not  to  irrational  creatures,  and  not  to  fallen  angels ; 
these  two  classes  are  excluded  by  the  nature  and  design  of  the  gos- 
pel. Further  than  this  there  is  no  limitation,  so  far  as  the  present 
state  of  existence  is  concerned.     We  are  commanded  to  make  the 


§2.]  THE   EXTERNAL   CALL.  643 

offer  of  salvation  througli  Jesus  to  every  human  being  on  the  face 
of  the  earth.  We  have  no  right  to  exclude  any  man  ;  and  no 
man  has  any  right  to  exclude  himself.  God  so  loved  the  world, 
that  He  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  be-lieveth  in 
Him  might  not  perish  but  have  everlasting  life.  The  prediction 
and  promise  in  Joel  ii.  32,  "  Wliosoever  shall  call  on  the  name  of 
the  Lord  shall  be  delivered,"  is  repeatedly  renewed  in  the  New 
Testament,  as  in  Acts  ii.  21 ;  Romans  x.  13.  David  says  (Psalm 
Ixxxvi.  5),  "  Thou,  Lord,  art  good,  and  ready  to  forgive  ;  and 
plenteous  in  mercy  unto  all  them  that  call  upon  thee."  The 
prophet  Isaiah  Iv.  1,  gives  the  same  general  invitation:  "Ho, 
every  one  that  thirsteth,  come  ye  to  the  waters,  and  he  that  hath 
no  money  ;  come  ye,  buy  and  eat ;  yea,  come,  buy  wine  and  milk 
without  money,  and  without  price."  Our  Lord's  call  is  equally 
unrestricted,  "  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy 
laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest."  (Matt.  xi.  28.)  And  the  sacred 
canon  closes  with  the  same  gracious  words,  "  The  Spirit  and  the 
bride  say,  Come.  And  let  him  that  heareth  say,  Come.  And  let 
him  that  is  athirst,  come  :  and  whosoever  will,  let  him  take  the 
water  of  life  freely."  (Rev.  xxii.  17.)  The  Apostles,  therefore, 
when  they  went  forth  in  the  execution  of  the  commission  which 
they  had  received,  preached  the  gospel  to  every  class  of  men,  and 
assured  every  man  whom  they  addressed,  that  if  he  would  repent 
and  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  he  should  be  saved.  If, 
therefore,  any  one  holds  any  view  of  the  decrees  of  God,  or  of  the 
satisfaction  of  Christ,  or  of  any  other  Scriptural  doctrine,  which 
hampers  him  in  making  this  general  offer  of  the  gospel,  he  may  be 
sure  that  his  views  or  his  logical  processes  are  wrong.  The  Apos- 
tles were  not  thus  hampered,  and  we  act  under  the  commission 
given  to  them. 

It  is  not  Inconsistent  with  the  Doctrine  of  Predestination. 

This  general  call  of  the  gospel  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
doctrine  of  predestination.  For  predestination  concerns  only  the 
purpose  of  God  to  render  effectual  in  particular  cases,  a  call  ad- 
dressed to  all.  A  general  amnesty  on  certain  conditions  may  be 
offered  by  a  sovereign  to  rebellious  subjects,  although  he  knows 
that  through  pride  or  malice  many  will  refuse  to  accept  it  ;  and 
even  although,  for  wise  reasons,  he  should  determine  not  to  con- 
strain their  assent,  supposing  that  such  influence  over  their  minds 
were  within  his  power.  It  is  evident  from  the  nature  of  the  call 
that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  secret  purpose  of  God  to  grant 


644  PART  m.   Ch.  XIV.— vocation. 

his  effectual  grace  to  some  and  not  to  others.  All  the  call  contains 
is  true.  The  plan  of  salvation  is  designed  for  men.  It  is  adapted 
to  the  condition  of  all.  It  makes  ahundant  provision  for  the  salva- 
tion of  all.  The  promise  of  acceptance  on  the  condition  of  faith  is 
made  to  all.  And  the  motives  and  reasons  which  should  constrain 
obedience  are  brought  to  bear  on  every  mind  to  which  the  call  is 
sent.  According  to  the  Augustinian  scheme,  the  non-elect  have 
all  the  advantages  and  opportunities  of  securing  their  salvation, 
that,  according  to  any  other  scheme,  are  granted  to  mankind  in- 
discriminately. Augustinianism  teaches  that  a  plan  of  salvation 
adapted  to  all  men  and  adequate  for  the  salvation  of  all,  is  freely 
offered  to  the  acceptance  of  all,  although  in  the  secret  purpose  of 
God,  he  intended  that  it  should  have  precisely  the  effect  which  in 
experience  it  is  found  to  have.  He  designed  in  its  adoption  to  save 
his  own  people,  but  consistently  offers  its  benefits  to  all  who  are 
willincr  to  receive  them.  More  than  this  no  anti- Augustinian  can 
demand. 

It  is  Consistent  with  the  Sincerity  of  Grod. 

It  is  further  said  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  sincerity  of  God,  to 
offer  salvation  to  those  whom  He  has  predetermined  to  leave  to 
the  just  recompense  of  their  sins.  It  is  enough  to  say  in  answer 
to  this  objection,  so  strenuously  urged  by  Lutherans  and  Armini- 
ans,  that  it  bears  with  equal  force  against  the  doctrine  of  God's 
foreknowledge,  which  they  admit  to  be  an  essential  attribute  of 
his  nature.  How  can  He  offer  salvation  to  those  whom  He  fore- 
knows will  despise  and  reject  it ;  and  when  He  also  knows  that 
their  guilt  and  condemnation  will  thereby  be  greatly  aggravated. 
There  is  no  real  difficulty  in  either  case  except  what  is  purely 
subjective.  It  is  in  us,  in  our  limited  and  partial  apprehensions  ; 
and  in  our  inability  to  comprehend  the  ways  of  God,  which  are 
past  finding  out.  We  cannot  understand  how  God  governs  the 
world  and  accomplishes  his  infinitely  wise  designs.  We  must  be 
satisfied  with  facts.  Whatever  actually  is,  it  must  be  right  for 
God  to  permit  to  be.  And  it  is  no  less  evident  that  whatever  He 
permits  to  be,  it  must  be  right  for  Him  to  intend  to  permit.  And 
this  is  all  that  the  Augustinian  scheme,  in  obedience  to  the  Word 
of  God,  is  constrained  to  assert.  It  is  enough  that  the  offer  of  sal- 
vation through  Jesus  Christ,  is  to  be  made  to  every  creature  ;  that 
whosoever  accepts  that  offer  shall  be  saved ;  and  that  for  the  salva- 
tion of  all,  abundant  provision  has  been  made.  What  God's  pur- 
poses may  be  in  instituting  and  promulgating  this  scheme  of  mercy, 
has  nothing  to  do  with  our  duty  as  ministers  in  making  the  procla- 


§  2.]  THE   EXTERNAL   CALL.  645 

mation,  or  with  our  obligation  and  privilege  as  sinners  in  accepting 
his  proffered  grace.  If  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  sincerity  of 
God  to  command  all  men  to  love  Him,  it  is  not  inconsistent  with 
his  sincerity  to  command  them  to  repent  and  believe  the  gospel. 

The  Lutheran  Doctrine. 

The  Lutherans  from  their  anxiety  to  get  rid  of  the  sovereignty  of 
God  in  the  dispensation  of  his  grace,  are  led  to  hold  that  the  gospel 
offer  is  universal,  not  only  in  the  sense  above  stated,  in  that  the 
command  is  given  to  the  Church,  to  make  it  known  to  all  men,  but 
that  it  has  in  some  way  been  actually  communicated  to  all.  They 
admit  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  this  assumption  with  the  present 
state  of  the  world.  They  attempt  to  meet  this  difficulty  by  say- 
ing, that  at  three  different  epochs  the  knowledge  of  the  plan  of 
salvation  was  actually  known  to  all  men.  First,  when  the  promise 
of  redemption  through  the  seed  of  the  woman,  was  made  to  our 
first  parents.  Secondly,  in  the  days  of  Noah  ;  and  thirdly,  during 
the  age  of  the  Apostles,  by  whom,  it  is  assumed,  the  gospel  was 
carried  to  the  ends  of  the  world,  even  to  the  inhabitants  of  this 
western  continent.  That  this  knowledge  has  since  been  lost,  is  to 
be  referred  not  to  the  purpose  of  God,  but  to  the  wilful  ingratitude 
and  wickedness  of  the  ancestors  of  the  present  inhabitants  of  the 
heathen  world.  They  refer  also  to  the  fact  that  the  Church  is  as 
a  city  set  upon  a  hill ;  that  it  does  more  or  less  attract  the  atten- 
tion of  the  whole  earth.  All  men  have  heard  of  Christians  and  of 
Christianity ;  and  it  is  their  own  fault  if  they  do  not  seek  further 
knowledge  on  the  subject.  It  is  very  plain,  however,  that  these 
considerations  do  not  touch  the  difficulty.  The  heathen  are  with- 
out Christ  and  without  God  in  the  world.  This  is  Paul's  account 
of  their  condition.  It  is  in  vain,  therefore,  for  us  to  attempt  to 
show  that  they  have  the  knowledge  which  the  Apostle  asserts  they 
do  not  possess,  and  which,  as  all  history  shows,  does  not  exist 
among  them.  The  Lutheran  divines  feel  the  unsatisfactory  nature 
of  their  ow^n  solution  of  this  great  problem.  Gerhard,  after  re- 
ferring to  all  possible  sources  of  divine  knowledge  accessible  to  the 
heathen,  says,^  "  Sed  demus,  in  his  et  similibus  exemplis  speciali- 
bus  non  posse  nos  exacte  causas  divinorum  consiliorum  exquirere 
vel  proponere  ;  non  tamen  ad  absolutum  aliquod  reprobationis  de- 
cretum  erit  confugiendum  sed  adhaereamus  firmiter  pronunciatis 
istis  universalibus.  1  Tim.  ii.  4  ;  Ezek.  xxxiii.  11."  "  The  Sym- 
bolical Books,"  says  Schmid,^  "adhere  to  the  simple  proposition; 

1  Loci   Theologici,  \oc.  viii.;  vii.  136,  vol.  iv.  p.   191. 

2  Dogmalik,  3rd  edit.  Frankfort  on  the  Maine  and  Erlangen,  1853,  p.  350. 


646  PART  m.   Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

'  quod  non  tantum  prsedicatio  poenitentiai,  venam  etiam  promissio 
evangelii  sit  universalis,  hoc  est  ad  omnes  homines  pertineat,' "^ 
and  that  this  vocatio  is  per  verbum  ;  without  attempting  to  recon- 
cile these  statements  with  the  facts  of  experience. 

The  Call  to  Salvation  is  only  through  the  Gospel. 

The  call  in  question  is  made  only  through  the  Word  of  God, 
as  heard  or  read.  That  is,  the  revelation  of  the  plan  of  salvation 
is  not  made  by  the  works  or  by  the  providence  of  God  ;  nor  by 
the  moral  constitution  of  our  nature,  nor  by  the  intuitions  or  de- 
ductions of  reason  ;  nor  by  direct  revelation  to  all  men  everywhere 
and  at  all  times  ;  but  only  in  the  written  Word  of  God.  It  is  not 
denied  that  God  may,  and  in  past  ages  certainly  did,  convey  this 
saving  knowledge  by  direct  revelation  without  the  intervention  of 
any  external  means  of  instruction.  Such  was  the  fact  in  the  case 
of  the  Apostle  Paul.  And  such  cases,  for  all  we  know,  may  even 
now  occur.  But  these  are  miracles.  This  is  not  the  ordinary 
method.  For  such  supernatural  revelations  of  truth  after  its  being 
made  known  in  the  Scriptures  and  committed  to  the  Church  with 
the  command  to  teach  all  nations,  we  have  no  promise  in  the  Scrip- 
tures and  no  evidence  from  experience. 

It  has  ever  been,  and  still  is,  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  univer- 
sal in  almost  all  its  parts,  that  it  is  only  in  and  through  the  Scrip- 
tures that  the  knowledge  necessary  to  salvation  is  revealed  to  men. 
The  Rationalists,  as  did  the  Pelagians,  hold  that  what  they  call 
"  the  light  of  nature,"  reveals  enough  of  divine  truth  to  secure 
the  return  of  the  soul  to  God,  if  it  be  properly  improved.  And 
many  Arminians,  as  well  as  Mystics,  hold  that  the  supernatural 
teaching  of  the  Spirit  is  granted  in  sufficient  measure  to  every  man 
to  secure  his  salvation,  if  he  yields  himself  up  to  its  guidance.  It 
would  be  very  agreeable  to  our  natural  feelings  to  believe  this,  as 
it  would  be  to  believe  that  all  men  will  be  saved.  But  such  is  not 
the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  ;  and  it  requires  but  little  humility  to 
believe  that  God  is  better  as  well  as  wiser  than  man  ;  that  his  ways 
are  higher  than  our  ways,  and  his  thoughts  than  our  thoughts ;  and 
that  whatever  He  ordains  is  best. 

That  the  Scriptures  do  teach  that  saving  knowledge  is  contained 
only  in  the  Bible,  and  consequently  that  those  ignorant  of  its  con- 
tents, are  ignorant  of  the  way  of  salvation,  is  plain, — 

1.  Because  the  Scriptures  both  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, constantly  represent  the  heathen  as  in  a  state  of  fatal  igno- 

1  Formula  ConcordicB,  xi.  28 ;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolici,  p.  804. 


§  2.]  THE   EXTERNAL   CALL.  647 

ranee.  They  are  declared  by  the  ancient  prophets  to  be  afar  off 
from  God ;  to  be  the  worsliippers  of  idols,  to  be  sunk  in  sin.  The 
people  of  Israel  were  separated  from  other  nations  for  the  express 
purpose  of  preserving  the  knowledge  of  the  true  religion.  To 
them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God.  In  the  New  Testament 
the  same  representation  is  given  of  their  condition.  It  is  said,  They 
know  not  God.  The  Apostle  proves  at  length  in  the  first  chapter 
of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  that  they  are  universally  and  justly 
in  a  state  of  condemnation.  He  exhorts  the  Ephesians  to  call  to 
mind  their  condition  before  they  received  the  gospel.  They  were 
"  without  Christ,  being  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel, 
and  strangers  from  the  covenants  of  promise,  having  no  hope,  and 
without  God,  in  the  world."  (Eph.  ii.  12.)  Such  is  the  uniform 
teaching  of  the  Word  of  God.  It  is  utterly  inconsistent  with 
these  representations,  to  assume  that  the  heathen  had  such  knowl- 
edge of  God  either  by  tradition,  or  by  inward  revelation,  as  was 
sufficient  to  lead  them  to  holiness  and  God. 

2.  This  doctrine  follows  also  from  the  nature  of  the  gospel.  It 
claims  to  be  the  only  method  of  salvation.  It  takes  for  granted 
that  men  are  in  a  state  of  sin  and  condemnation,  from  which  they 
are  unable  to  deliver  themselves.  It  teaches  that  for  the  salvation 
of  men  the  Eternal  Son  of  God  assumed  our  nature,  obeyed  and 
suffered  in  our  stead,  and  having  died  for  our  sins,  rose  again  for 
our  justification  ;  that,  so  far  as  adults  are  concerned,  the  intelli- 
gent and  voluntary  acceptance  of  Christ  as  our  God  and  Saviour 
is  the  one  indispensable  condition  of  salvation  ;  that  there  is  no 
other  name  under  heaven  whereby  men  can  be  saved.  It  provides, 
therefore,  for  a  Church  and  a  Ministry  whose  great  duty  it  is  to 
make  known  to  men  this  great  salvation.  All  this  takes  for  granted 
that  without  this  knowledge,  men  must  perish  in  their  sins. 

3.  This  is  further  evident  from  the  nature  of  the  message  which 
the  ministers  of  the  gospel  are  commissioned  to  deliver.  They  are 
commanded  to  go  into  all  the  world,  and  say  to  every  creature, 
"  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved." 
"  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son,  hath  everlasting  life  :  and  he  that 
believeth  not  the  Son,  shall  not  see  life  ;  but  the  wrath  of  God 
abideth  on  him."  Where  is  the  propriety  of  such  a  message  if 
men  can  be  saved  without  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  and  conse- 
quently without  faith  in  Him. 

4.  This  necessity  of  a  knowledge  of  the  gospel  is  expressly 
asserted  in  the  Scriptures.  Our  Lord  not  only  declares  that  no 
man  can  come  unto  the  Father,  but  by  Him ;  that  no  man  know- 


HS  PART  III.     Ch.   XIV.  — vocation. 

eth  the  Father,  but  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  shall  reveal 
Him ;  but  He  says  expressly,  "  He  that  believeth  not,  shall  be 
damned."  (Mark  xvi.  16  ;  John  iii.  18.)  But  faith  without  knowl- 
edge is  impossible.  The  Apostle  John  says,  "  He  that  hath  the 
Son,  hath  life  ;  he  that  hath  not  the  Son  of  God,  hath  not  life." 
(1  John  V.  12.)  The  knowledge  of  Christ  is  not  only  the  condi- 
tion of  life,  but  it  is  life  ;  and  without  that  knowledge,  the  life  in 
question  cannot  exist.  Him  to  know  is  life  eternal.  Paul,  there- 
fore, said,  "  I  count  all  things  but  loss,  for  the  excellency  of  the 
knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus  my  Lord."  (Phil.  iii.  8.)  Christ  is 
not  only  the  giver,  but  the  object  of  life.  Those  exercises  which 
are  the  manifestations  of  spiritual  life  terminate  on  Him  ;  without 
the  knowledge  of  Him,  therefore,  there  can  be  no  such  exercises  ; 
as  without  the  knowledge  of  God  there  can  be  no  religion.  It  is 
consequently,  as  the  Apostle  teaches,  through  the  knowledge  of 
Christ,  that  God  "  hath  called  us  to  glory  and  virtue."  (2  Peter  i. 
3.)  To  be  without  Christ  is  to  be  without  hope,  and  without 
God.  (Eph.  ii.  12.)  The  Apostle  Paul,  while  asserting  the 
general  vocation  of  men,  saying,  "  Whosoever  shall  call  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  shall  be  saved  ; "  immediately  adds,  "  How 
then  shall  they  call  on  Him  in  whom  they  have  not  believed  ?  and 
how  shall  they  believe  in  Him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  ?  and 
how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher?"  (Rom.  x.  14.)  Invo- 
cation implies  faith  ;  faith  implies  knowledge  ;  knowledge  implies 
objective  teaching.  "  Faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by 
the  word  of  God."  (Verse  17.)  There  is  no  faith,  therefore, 
where  the  gospel  is  not  heard  ;  and  where  there  is  no  faith,  there 
is  no  salvation. 

This  is  indeed  an  awful  doctrine.  But  are  not  the  words  of  our 
Lord  also  awful,  "  Wide  is  the  gate,  and  broad  is  the  way,  that 
leadeth  to  destruction,  and  many  there  be  which  go  in  thereat ; 
because  strait  is  the  gate,  and  narrow  is  the  way,  which  leadeth 
unto  life,  and  few  there  be  that  find  it "  ?  (Matt.  vii.  13, 14.)  Is  not 
the  fact  awful  which  stares  every  man  in  the  face,  that  the  great 
majority  even  of  those  who  hear  the  gospel  reject  its  offers  of 
mercy.  Facts  are  as  mystei'ious  as  doctrines.  If  we  must  submit 
to  the  one,  we  may  as  well  submit  to  the  other.  Our  Lord  has 
taught  us,  in  view  of  facts  or  doctrines  which  try  our  faith,  to  re- 
member the  infinite  wisdom  and  rectitude  of  God,  and  say,  "  Even 
so  Father ;  for  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight."  The  proper  effect 
of  the  doctrine  that  the  knowledge  of  the  gospel  is  essential  to  the 
salvation  of  adults,  instead  of  exciting  opposition  to  God's  word  or 


§  2.]  THE  EXTERNAL   CALL.  649 

providence,  is  to  prompt  us  to  greatly  increased  exertion  to  send 
the  gosj^el  to  those  who  are  perishing  for  lack  of  knowledge. 

Why  is  the  Gospel  addressed  to  all  Men? 

As  all  men  are  not  saved,  the  question  arises,  Why  should  the 
call  be  addressed  to  all  ?  or.  What  is  the  design  of  God  in  making 
the  call  of  the  gospel  universal  and  indiscriminate  ?  The  answer 
to  this  question  will  be  determined  by  the  views  taken  of  other 
related  points  of  Christian  doctrine.  If  we  adopt  the  Pelagian 
hypothesis  that  God  limits  Himself  by  the  creation  of  free  agents; 
that  such  agents  must  from  their  nature  be  exempt  from  absolute 
control ;  then  the  relation  to  God  in  this  matter  is  analogous  to 
that  of  one  finite  spirit  to  another.  He  can  instruct,  argue,  and 
endeavour  to  persuade.  More  than  this  free  agency  does  not 
admit.  Men  as  rational,  voluntary  beings,  must  be  left  to  deter- 
mine for  themselves,  whether  they  will  return  to  God  in  the  way 
of  his  appointment,  or  continue  in  their  rebellion.  The  call  of  the 
gospel  to  them  is  intended  to  bring  them  to  repentance.  This  is 
an  end  which  God  sincerely  desires  to  accomplish,  and  which  He 
does  all  He  can  to  effect.  He  cannot  do  more  than  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel  accomplishes,  without  doing  violence  to  the  freedom 
of  voluntary  agents. 

The  Lutherans  admit  total  depravity,  and  the  entire  inability  of 
men  since  the  fall  to  do  anything  spiritually  good  ;  but  they  hold 
that  the  Word  of  God  has  an  inherent,  supernatural,  and  divine 
power,  which  would  infallibly  secure  the  spiritual  resurrection  of 
the  spiritually  dead,  were  it  not  wilfully  neglected,  or  wickedly 
resisted.  The  call  of  the  gospel  is,  therefore,  addressed  to  all  men 
with  the  same  intention  on  the  part  of  God.  He  not  only  desires, 
as  an  event  in  itself  well  pleasing  in  his  sight,  that  all  may  repent 
and  believe,  but  that  is  the  end  which  He  purposes  to  accomplish. 
Its  accomplishment  is  hindered,  in  all  cases  of  failure,  by  the  vol- 
untary resistance  of  men.  While,  therefore,  they  attribute  the 
conversion  of  men  io  the  efficacious  grace  of  God,  and  not  to  the 
cooperation  or  will  of  the  subjects  of  that  grace,  they  deny  that 
grace  is  "  irresistible."  The  fact  that  one  man  is  converted  under 
the  call  of  the  gospel  and  not  another,  that  one  accepts  and  an- 
other rejects  the  offered  mercy,  is  not  to  be  referred  to  anvthino- 
in  the  purpose  of  God,  or  to  the  nature  of  the  influence  of  which 
the  hearers  of  the  gospel  are  the  subjects,  but  solely  to  the  fact 
that  one  does,  and  the  other  does  not  resist  that  influence.  The 
Lutheran  doctrine  is  thus  clearly  stated  by  Quenstedt :    "  Voca- 


C50  PART  m.   ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

tio  est  actus  gratia  applicatricls  Spiritus  Sancti,  quo  is  benignis- 
simam  Dei  erga  universum  genus  humanum  lapsum  voluntatem  per 
externain  Verbi  praedicationem,  in  se  semper  sufficientem  ac  effica- 
cem,  nianifestat,  et  bona  per  Redemtoris  meritum  parta,  omnibus 
in  universum  hominibus  off'ert,  ea  seria  intentione,  ut  omnes  per 
Christum  salvi  fiant  et  geterna  vita  donentur."  And  a^ain : 
"  Forma  vocationis  consistit  in  seria  atque  ex  Dei  intentione  sem- 
per sufficiente,  semperque  efficaci  voluntatis  divinae  manifestatione 

ac  beneHciorum  per  Christum  acquisitorum  oblatione Nulla 

enim  vocatio  Dei  sive  ex  se  et  intrinseca  sua  qualitate,  sive  ex  Dei 
intentione  est  inefficax,  ut  nee  possit  nee  debeat  effectum  salutarem 
producere,  sed  omnis  efficax  est  licet,  quo  minus  effectum  suum 
consequatur,  ab  hominibus  obicem  ponentibus,  impediatur,  atque 
ita  inefficax  fit  vitio  malaR  obstinataeque  hominum  voluntatis."  ^ 
The  objections  to  this  view  are  obvious. 

1.  It  proceeds  on  the  assumption  that  events  in  time  do  not  cor- 
respond to  the  purpose  of  God.  This  is  not  only  inconsistent  with 
the  divine  perfection,  but  contrary  to  the  express  declarations  of 
Scripture,  which  teaches  that  God  works  all  things  according  to 
the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  He  foreordains  whatever  comes  to 
pass. 

2.  It  supposes  either  that  God  has  no  purpose  as  to  the  futuri- 
tion  of  events,  or  that  his  "  serious  intentions  "  may  fail  of  being 
accomplished.  This  is  obviously  incompatible  with  the  nature  of 
an  infinite  Being. 

3.  It  not  only  assumes  that  the  purpose  of  God  may  fail,  but 
also  that  it  may  be  effectually  resisted  ;  that  events  may  occur 
which  it  is  his  purpose  or  intention  should  not  occur.  How  then 
can  it  be  said  that  God  governs  the  world  ;  or,  that  He  does  his 
pleasui'e  in  the  army  of  heaven  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the 
earth  ? 

4.  It  assumes  without  proof,  and  contrary  to  Scripture  and  ex- 
perience, that  the  Word  of  God  as  read  or  spoken  by  men,  has  an 
inherent,  supernatural,  life-giving  power,  adequate  to  raise  the 
spiritually  dead.  Whereas  the  Scriptures  constantly  teach  that  the 
efficacy  of  the  truth  is  due  to  the  attending  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  ab  extra  incidens  ;  tliat  the  Word  is  effectual  only  when  at- 
tended by  this  demonstration  of  the  Spirit,  and  that  without  it,  it 
is  foolishness  to  the  Greek  and  an  offence  to  the  Jew  ;  that  Paul 
may  plant,  and  Apollos  water,  but  that  God  only  can  give  the  in- 
crease. 

I  Syslema  Theologicum,  ill.  v.  1.  15  and  10,  edit.  Leipzig,  1715,  p.  669;  pp.  666,  667. 


§2.]  THE   EXTERNAL   CALL.  651 

5.  It  assumes  that  the  only  power  which  God  exercises  in  the 
conversion  of  sinners  is  that  inherent  in  the  Word,  whereas  the 
Scriptures  abound  with  prayers  for  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  attend 
the  Word  and  render  it  effectual ;  and  such  prayers  are  constantly 
offered,  and  ever  have  been  offered,  by  the  people  of  God.  They 
would,  however,  be  not  only  unnecessary  but  improper,  if  God  had 
revealed  his  purpose  not  to  grant  any  such  influence,  but  to  leave 
men  to  the  unattended  power  of  the  Word  itself.  Any  doctrine 
contrary  to  what  the  Bible  prescribes  as  a  duty,  and  what  all  Chris- 
tians do  by  the  instinct  of  their  renewed  nature,  must  be  false. 

6.  This  doctrine,  moreover,  takes  for  granted  that  the  ultimate 
reason  why  some  hearers  of  the  gospel  believe  and  others  do  not, 
is  to  be  found  in  themselves  ;  that  the  one  class  is  better,  more  im- 
pressible, or  less  obstinate  than  the  other.  The  Scriptures,  how- 
ever, refer  this  fact  to  the  sovereignty  of  God.  Our  Lord  says, 
"  I  thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  because  thou 
hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed 
them  unto  babes."  (Matt.  xi.  25.)  The  Apostle  says,  "  It  is  not 
of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that 
sheweth  mercy.""  "  I  will  have  mercy,"  saith  God,  "  on  whom  I 
will  have  mercy,  and  I  will  have  compassion  on  whom  I  will  have 
compassion."  (Rom.  ix.  15,  16.)  "  Of  him  [God]  are  ye  in 
Christ  Jesus,  not  of  yourselves,  lest  any  should  boast."  (1  Cor. 
i.  30.) 

7.  The  doctrine  in  question  has  no  support  from  Scripture.  The 
passages  constantly  referred  to  in  its  favour  are,  1  Timothy  ii.  3,  4. 
"  God  our  Saviour,  who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  to  come 
unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  ;  "  and  Ezekiel  xxxiii.  11,  "  As  I 
live,  saith  the  Loid  God,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the 
wicked  ;  but  that  the  wicked  turn  from  his  way  and  live."  God 
forbid  that  any  man  should  teach  anything  inconsistent  with  these 
precious  declarations  of  the  Word  of  God.  They  clearly  teach  that 
God  is  a  benevolent  Being  ;  that  He  delifjhts  not  in  the  sufferincfs 
of  his  creatures  ;  that  in  all  cases  of  suffering  there  is  an  impera- 
tive reason  for  its  infliction,  consistent  with  the  highest  wisdom  and 
benevolence.  God  pities  even  the  wicked  whom  He  condemns,  as 
a  father  pities  the  disobedient  child  whom  he  chastises.  And  as 
the  father  can  truthfully  and  with  a  full  heart  say.  that  he  delights 
not  in  the  sufferings  of  iiis  child,  so  our  Father  in  heaven  can  say, 
that  He  delights  not  in  the  death  of  the  wicked.  The  difficulty  as 
to  the  passage  in  1  Timothy  ii.  4,  arises  simply  from  the  ambiguity  of 
the  word  OeKeiv  there  used.     Commonly  the  word  means  to  will^  in 


662  PART  m.    Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

the  sense  of  to  intend,  to  purpose.  Such  cannot  be  its  meaning 
here,  because  it  cannot  be  said  that  God  intends  or  purposes  that 
all  men  should  be  saved  ;  or,  that  all  should  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth.  This  is  inconsistent  witli  Scripture  and  experience. 
The  word,  however,  often  means  to  delight  in,  and  even  to  love. 
In  the  Sei)tuagint  it  is  used  as  the  equivalent  of  ypn,  as  in  Psalms 
xxii.  9,  cxii.  1,  cxlvii.  10.  In  Matthew,  xxvii.  43,  v-  OiXet  airov,  is 
currectly  rendered  in  our  version,  "  If  he  will  have  him."  (Heb. 
X.  5,  8  ;  Luke  xx.  46  ;  Mark  xii.  38 ;  Col.  ii.  18.)  The  Apostle, 
therefore,  says  only  what  the  prophet  had  said.  God  delights  in 
the  iiappiness  of  his  creatures.  He  takes  no  pleasure  in  the  death 
of  the  wicked.  But  tiiis  is  perfectly  consistent  with  his  purpose 
not  to  "  spare  the  guilty." 

8.  Finally,  the  Lutheran  doctrine  relieves  no  difficulty.  The 
Reformed  doctrine  assumes  that  some  men  perish  for  their  sins  ; 
and  that  those  who  are  thus  left  to  perish  are  passed  by  not  because 
they  are  worse  than  others,  but  in  the  sovereignty  of  God.  The 
Lutheran  doctrine  concedes  both  those  facts.  Some  men  do  per- 
ish ;  and  they  perish,  at  least  in  the  case  of  the  heathen,  without 
having  the  means  of  salvation  offered  to  them.  There  is  the  same 
exercise  of  sovereignty  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  The 
Lutheran  must  stand  with  his  hand  upon  his  mouth,  side  by  side 
with  the  Reformed,  and  join  him  in  saying,  "Even  so  Father;  for 
so  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight." 

The  simple  representation  of  Scripture  on  this  subject,  confirmed 
by  the  facts  of  consciousness  and  experience  is,  that  all  men  are 
sinners  ;  they  are  all  guilty  before  God  ;  they  have  all  forfeited 
every  claim  upon  his  justice.  His  relation  to  them  is  that  of  a 
father  to  his  disobedient  children  ;  or,  of  a  sovereign  to  wickedly 
rebellious  subjects.  It  is  not  necessary  that  all  should  receive  the 
punishment  which  they  have  justly  incurred.  In  the  sight  of  an 
infinitely  good  and  merciful  God,  it  is  necessary  that  some  of  the 
rebellious  race  of  man  should  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law  which 
all  have  broken.  It  is  God's  prerogative  to  determine  who  shall 
be  vessels  of  mercy,  and  who  shall  be  left  to  the  just  recompense 
of  their  sins.  Such  are  the  declarations  of  Scripture  ;  and  such 
are  the  facts  of  the  case.  We  can  alter  neither.  Our  blessedness 
is  to  trust  in  the  Lord,  and  to  rejoice  that  the  destiny  of  his  crea- 
tures is  not  in  their  own  hands,  nor  in  the  hands  either  of  fate  or 
of  chance  ;  but  in  those  of  Him  who  is  infinite  in  wisdom,  love, 
and  power. 

But  if  the  Lutheran  doctrine  that  the  call  of  the  gospel  is  uni- 


§  2]  THE  EXTERNAL   CALL.  653 

versal,  or  indiscriminate,  because  it  is  the  intention  of  God  that  all 
should  be  saved  and  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  is  con- 
trary to  Scripture,  the  question  remains,  Why  are  those  called 
whom  it  is  not  the  intention  of  God  to  save  ?  Why  are  all  called, 
if  God  has  a  fixed  purpose  of  rendering  that  call  effectual  to  some 
and  not  to  others  ? 

1.  The  most  obvious  answer  to  that  question  is  found  in  the 
nature  of  the  call  itself.  The  call  of  the  gospel  is  simply  the  com- 
mand of  God  to  men  to  repent  and  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  with  the  pi'omise  that  those  who  believe  shall  be  saved.  It 
is  the  revelation  of  a  duty  binding  upon  all  men.  There  is  as 
much  reason  that  men  should  be  commanded  to  believe  in  Christ, 
as  that  they  should  be  commanded  to  love  God.  The  one  duty  is 
as  universally  obligatory  as  the  other.  The  command  to  believe 
no  more  implies  the  intention  on  the  part  of  God  to  give  faith, 
than  the  command  to  love  implies  the  intention  to  give  love.  And 
as  the  latter  command  does  not  assume  that  men  have  of  them- 
selves power  to  love  God  perfectly,  so  neither  does  the  command  to 
believe  assume  the  power  of  exercising  saving  faith,  which  the 
Scriptures  declare  to  be  the  gift  of  God. 

2.  The  general  call  of  the  gospel  is  the  means  ordained  by  God. 
to  gather  in  his  chosen  people.  They  are  mingled  with  other  men, 
unknown  except  by  God.  The  duty  obligatory  on  all  is  made 
known  to  all  ;  a  privilege  suited  to  all  is  offered  indiscriminately. 
That  some  only  are  made  wilUng  to  perform  the  duty,  or  to  accept 
the  privilege,  in  no  way  conflicts  with  the  propriety  of  the  univer- 
sal proclamation. 

3.  Tiiis  general  call  of  the  gospel  with  the  promise  that  whoever 
believes  shall  be  saved,  serves  to  show  the  unreasonable  wickedness 
and  perverseness  of  those  who  deliberately  reject  it.  The  justice 
of  their  condemnation  is  thus  rendered  the  more  obvious  to  them- 
selves and  to  all  other  rational  creatures.  "  This  is  the  condemna- 
tion, that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  loved  darkness 
rather  than  light,  because  their  deeds  were  evil.  He  that  believeth 
not  is  condemned  already,  because  he  hath  not  believed  in  the 
name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God."  (John  iii.  19,  18.)  The 
most  unreasonable  sin  which  men  commit  is  refusing  to  accept  of 
the  Son  of  God  as  their  Saviour.  This  refusal  is  as  deliberate,  and 
as  voluntary,  according  to  the  Reformed  doctrine,  as  it  is  according 
to  the  Lutheran  or  even  the  Pelagian  theory. 


654  PART  m.    Cn.  XIV.  —  VOCATION. 

§  3.  Common  G-race. 
The  word  x"-P'-'>^  ^5^7?  means  a  favourable  disposition,  or  kind 
feeling ;  and  especially  love  as  exercised  towards  the  inferior,  de- 
pendent, or  unworthy.  This  is  represented  as  the  crowning  attri- 
bute of  the  divine  nature.  Its  manifestation  is  declared  to  be  the 
grand  end  of  the  whole  scheme  of  redemption.  The  Apostle 
teaches  that  predestination,  election,  and  salvation  are  all  intended 
for  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  the  grace  of  God  which  He  exercises 
towards  us  in  Christ  Jesus.  (Eph.  i.  3-6.)  He  raises  men  from 
spiritual  death,  "  and  makes  them  sit  together  in  heavenly  places 
in  Christ  Jesus,  that  in  the  ages  to  come  he  might  show  the  ex- 
ceeding riches  of  his  grace."  (Eph.  ii.  6,  7.)  Therefore  it  is 
often  asserted  that  salvation  is  of  grace.  The  gospel  is  a  system 
of  grace.  All  its  blessings  are  gratuitously  bestowed  ;  all  is  so 
ordered  that  in  every  step  of  the  progress  of  redemption  and  in  its 
consummation,  the  grace,  or  undeserved  love  of  God,  is  conspicu- 
ously displayed.  Nothing  is  given  or  promised  on  the  ground  of 
merit.  Everything  is  an  undeserved  favour.  That  salvation  was 
provided  at  all,  is  a  matter  of  grace  and  not  of  debt.  That  one 
man  is  saved,  and  another  not,  is  to  the  subject  of  salvation,  a  mat- 
ter of  grace.  All  his  Christian  virtues,  are  graces,  i.  e.,  gifts. 
Hence  it  is  that  the  greatest  of  all  gifts  secured  by  the  work  of 
Christ,  that  without  which  salvation  had  been  impossible,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  the  influence  which  He  exerts  on  the  minds  of  men,  has 
in  all  ages  and  in  all  parts  of  the  Church  been  designated  as  divine 
grace.  A  work  of  grace  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  the 
means  of  grace,  are  the  means  by  which,  or  in  connection  with 
which,  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  is  conveyed  or  exercised.  By 
common  grace,  therefore,  is  meant  that  influence  of  the  Spirit, 
which  in  a  greater  or  less  measure,  is  granted  to  all  who  hear  the 
truth.  By  sufficient  grace  is  meant  such  kind  and  degree  of  the 
Spirit's  influence,  as  is  sufficient  to  lead  men  to  repentance,  faith, 
and  a  holy  life.  By  efficacious  grace  is  meant  such  an  influence 
of  the  Spirit  as  is  certainly  effectual  in  producing  regeneration  and 
conversion.  By  preventing  grace  is  intended  that  operation  of  the 
Spirit  on  the  mind  which  precedes  and  excites  its  efforts  to  return 
to  God.  By  the  gratia  gratum  faciens  is  meant  the  influence  of 
the  Spirit  which  renews  or  renders  gracious.  Cooperating  grace 
is  that  Influence  of  the  Spirit  which  aids  the  ])eople  of  God  in 
all  the  exercises  of  the  divine  life.  By  habitual  grace  is  meant  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  dwelling  in  believers  ;  or,  that  permanent,  immanent 


§3]  COMMON  GRACE.  655 

state  of  mind  due  to  his  abiding  presence  and  power.  Sucli  is 
the  estabhshed  theological  and  Christian  usage  of  this  word.  By 
grace,  therefore,  in  this  connection  is  meant  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  on  the  minds  of  men. 

This  is  an  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  distinct  from,  and  acces- 
sary to  the  influence  of  the  truth.  There  is  a  natural  relation 
between  truth,  whether  speculative,  aesthetic,  moral,  or  religious, 
and  the  mind  of  man.  All  such  truth  tends  to  produce  an  effect 
suited  to  its  nature,  unless  counteracted  by  inadequate  apprehen- 
sion or  by  the  inward  state  of  those  to  whom  it  is  presented. 
This  is  of  course  true  of  the  Word  of  God.  It  is  replete  with 
truths  of  the  highest  order  ;  the  most  elevated  ;  the  most  impor- 
tant ;  the  most  pertinent  to  the  nature  and  necessities  of  man  ; 
and  the  best  adapted  to  convince  the  reason,  to  control  the  con- 
science, to  affect  the  heart,  and  to  govern  the  life.  Opposed  to 
this  doctrine  of  the  supernatural  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  on 
the  minds  of  men,  additional  to  the  moral  influence  of  the  truth,  is 
the  deistical  theory  of  God's  relation  to  the  world.  That  theory 
assumes  that  having  created  all  things,  and  endowed  his  creatures 
of  every  order,  material  and  immaterial,  rational  and  irrational, 
with  the  properties  and  attributes  suited  to  their  nature  and  des- 
tiny, he  leaves  the  world  to  the  control  of  these  subordinate  or 
second  causes,  and  never  intervenes  with  the  exercise  of  his  imme- 
diate agency.  This  same  view  is  by  many  Rationalists,  Pelagians, 
and  Remonstrants,  transferred  to  the  sphere  of  the  moral  and  re- 
licjious  relations  of  man.  God  havino;  made  man  a  rational  and 
moral  being  and  endowed  him  with  free  agency  ;  and  having  re- 
vealed in  his  works  and  in  his  Word  the  truth  concerning  Himself 
and  the  relation  of  man  to  the  great  Creator,  leaves  man  to  himself. 
There  is  no  influence  on  the  part  of  God  exerted  on  the  minds  of 
men,  apart  from  that  which  is  due  to  the  truth  which  He  has 
revealed.  Those  numerous  passages  of  Scripture  which  attribute 
the  conversion  and  sanctification  of  men  to  the  Spirit  of  God,  the 
advocates  of  this  theory  explain  by  saying :  That  as  the  Spirit  is 
the  author  of  the  truth.  He  may  be  said  to  be  the  author  of  the 
effects  which  the  truth  produces  ;  but  they  deny  any  intervention 
or  agency  of  the  Spirit  additional  to  the  truth  objectively  present 
to  the  mind.  On  this  point  Limborch  ^  says,  "  Interna  vocatio  .... 
qua3  fit  per  Spiritum  Dei,  ....  non  est  virtus   Spiritus  seorsim 

operans  a  verbo,  sed  per  verbum,  et  verbo  semper  inest 

Non  dicimus  duas  esse  (vorbi  et  Spiritus)  actiones  specie  distinetas  : 

1  Theoluyia  ChrUtinna,  iv.  xii.  2;  edit.  Amsterdam,  1715,  p.  350,  a. 


656  PART  m.   Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

sed  unam  eandemque  actionem  ;  quoniam  verbum  est  Spiritus,  hoc 
est,  Spiritus  verbo  inest."  ^  This  may  be  understood  either  in  a 
Rationalistic,  or  in  a  Lutlieran  sense.  It  expresses  the  views  of 
those  extreme  Remonstrants  who  inclined  most  to  Pelagianism. 
With  Pelagius  little  more  was  meant  by  grace  than  the  providen- 
tial blessings  which  men  enjoyed  in  a  greater  or  less  degree.  Even 
free-will  as  a  natural  endowment  he  called  grace. 

Lutheran  Doctrine  on  Common  Grace. 

A  second  view  on  this  subject  is  that  of  the  Lutherans  already 
referred  to.  They  also  deny  any  influence  of  the  Spirit  accessary 
to  the  power  inherent  in  the  Word.  But  they  are  very  far  from 
adopting  the  deistical  or  rationalistic  hypothesis.  They  fully  admit 
the  supernatural  power  of  Christianity  and  all  its  ordinances. 
They  hold  that  the  Word  "  habet  vim  aut  potentiam  activam  su- 
pernaturalem  ac  vere  divinam  ad  producendos  supernaturales 
effectus,  scilicet,  mentes  hominum  convertendas,  regenerandas  et 
renovendas."  ^  This  divine  efficacy  is  inherent  in,  and  inseparable 
from  the  Word.  The  words  of  man  have  only  human  power,  pre- 
senting arguments  and  motives  to  convince  and  to  persuade. 
The  Word  of  God  has  supernatural  and  divine  power.  If  in  any 
case  it  fail  to  produce  supernatural  effect,  i.  e.,  to  renew  and 
sanctify,  the  fault  is  in  the  hearer.  It  is  like  articles  of  the  ma- 
teria medica,  which  have  inherent  virtue,  but  wdiich  nevertheless 
require  a  suitable  condition  in  those  to  whom  they  are  adminis- 
tered, in  order  to  their  proper  effect.  Or,  to  take  a  much  higher 
illustration  and  one  of  which  the  Lutheran  divines  are  especially 
fond ;  the  Word  is  like  the  person  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  when 
here  on  earth.  He  was  replete  with  divine  virtue.  Whoever 
touched  even  the  hem  of  his  garment,  was  made  whole  of  what- 
ever disease  he  had.  Nevertheless  without  faith,  contact  with 
Christ  was  inefficacious.  There  is  all  the  difference,  therefore, 
according  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  between  the  word  of  man  and 
the  Word  of  God,  that  there  was  between  Christ  and  ordinary 
men.  The  effect  of  the  Word  is  no  more  to  be  attributed  to  its 
natural  power  as  truth  on  the  understanding  and  conscience,  than 
the  cures  effected  by  Christ  are  to  be  referred  to  any  natural 
remedial  agencies.  The  effect  in  both  cases  is  supernatural  and 
divine.  "  Verbum  Dei,"  says  Quensted,^  "  non  agit  solum  per- 
suasiones  morales,  proponendo  nobis  objectum  amabile,  sed  etiam 

1  Theologia  Christiana,  iv.  xii.  4;  p.  351,  a.         2  Schmid,  Dogmatik,  third  edit.  p.  393. 
8  Systema  Theologicum,  i.  iv.  2,  16,  4,  edit.  Leipzig,  1715,  p.  248. 


§  3.]  COMMON   GRACE.  657 

vero,  reali,  dlvino  et  ineffabili  influxu  potentire  suae  gratiosae,  ita  ut 
efficaciter  et  vere  convertat,  illuminet,  salvet  in  illo,  cum  illo  et  per 
illud  operante  Spiritu  Sancto ;  in  hoc  enim  consistit  verbi  divini  et 
humani  differentia."  So  Hollaz  says,i  "  Verbum  Dei,  qua  tale,  non 
potest  fingi  sine  divina  virtute  aut  sine  Spiritu  Sancto,  qui  a  verbo 
suo  inseparabilis  est.  Nam  si  a  verbo  Dei  separetur  Spiritus 
Sanctus,  non  esset  id  Dei  verbum  vel  verbum  Spiritus,  sed  esset 
verbum  humanum."  As  the  Spirit,  so  to  speak,  is  thus  immanent 
in  the  Word,  he  never  operates  on  the  mind  except  through  and 
by  the  Word.  On  this  point  Luther  and  the  Lutheran  divines 
insisted  with  great  earnestness.  They  were  especially  led  to  take 
this  ground  from  the  claims  of  fanatical  Anabaptists,  to  direct 
spiritual  communications  independent  of  the  Scriptures  to  which 
they  made  the  written  Word  subordinate  :  "  Pater  neminem  tra- 
here  vult,  absque  mediis,  sed  utitur  tanquam  ordinariis  mediis  et 
instrumentis,  verbo  suo  et  sacramentis."  ^  "  Constanter  tenendum 
est,  Deum  nemini  Spiritum  vel  gratiam  suam  largiri,  nisi  per  ver- 
bum et  cum  verbo  externo  et  praecedente,  ut  ita  praemuniamus 
nos  adversum  enthusiastas,  id  est,  spiritus,  qui  jactitant,  se  ante 
verbum  et  sine  verbo  Spiritum  habere,  et  ideo  scripturam  sive  vocale 
verbum  judicant,  flectunt  et  reflectunt  pro  libito,  ut  faciebat  Mone- 
tarius,  et  multi  adhuc  hodie,  qui  acute  discernere  volunt  inter  Spir- 
itum et  literam,  et  neutrum  norunt,  nee  quid  statuant,  sciunt."' 
The  Lutherans,  therefore,  reject  the  distinction  made  by  Calvin- 
ists  between  the  external  and  internal  call.  They  admit  such  a 
distinction,  "  sed,"  as  Quenstedt*  says,  "  ut  externam  vocationem  in- 
ternae  non  opponamus,  nee  unam  ab  altera  separamus,  cum  externa 
vocatio  internae  medium  sit  ac  organon  et  per  illam  Deus  efficax 
sit  in  cordibus  hominum.  Si  externa  vocatio  non  ex  asse  congruit 
internee,  si  externe  vocatus  esse  potest  qui  non  interne,  vana  fuerit, 
fallax,  illusoria." 

Rationalistic  View. 

A  third  doctrine  which  is  opposed  to  the  Scriptural  teaching  on 
this  subject,  is  that  which  makes  no  distinction  between  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit  and  the  providential  efficiency  of  God.  Thus 
Wegscheider  ^  says,  "  Operationes  gratiae  immediatas  et  supernatu- 
rales  jam  olipi  nonnulli  recte  monuerunt,  nee  diserte  promissas  esse 

1  By  Schmid,  p.  396. 

^  F<n-mula   Concot-duB,  xi.  76;    Hase,  Libii  Symbolici,  p.  818.     Sec   Cotifessio  Augtutana, 
I.  V.  2;  Ihirl.  p.  11. 

8  Articuli  SmakaliHci,  viii.  3;  Hase,  p.  331. 

♦  Systema  Theohgicum,  in.   v.  1,  15  (  ?);  edit.  Leipzig,  1715,  p.  669. 
6  Inslilulimes  Theoloyia,  in.   iii.  §  15-2;   fifth  edit.,  pp.  469,  470. 
vol..  II.  42 


658  PART   III.     Ch.  XIY.— vocation. 

in  llbris  sacris  nee  iiecessarias,  quum,  quae  ad  aniinum  emendanduin 
valeaiit,  omnia  legibus  natnrae  a  Deo  optime  efficiantur,  nee  de- 
nique  ita  eonspicuas  ut  cognosci  eerto  et  intelligi  possint.  Accedit, 
quod  libertatem  et  stadium  hominum  impediunt,  mysticorum  som- 
nia  fovent  et  Deum  ipsum   auctorem  arguunt  peccatorum  ab  lioin- 

inibus  non  emendatis  eommissorum Omnis  igitur  de  gratia 

disputatio  reetius  ad  doctrinam  de  providentia  Dei  singulari  et  con- 
cursu  refertur."  To  the  same  effect  De  Wette  says  :  "  It  is  one 
and  the  same  effieiency,  producing  good  in  men,  which  accord- 
ing to  the  natural  anthropological  view  we  ascribe  to  themselves, 
and  according  to  the  relio;ious  view  to  God.  These  two  modes  of 
appi'ehension  ought  not  to  be  considered  as  opposed  to  each  other, 
but  as  mutually  compensative."  Again,  "  Religious  faith  regards 
the  impulse  to  good  (die  Begeisterung  zum  Guten)  as  an  efflux 
from  God  ;   pliilosophical  reflection  as  the  force  of  reason."  ^ 

It  depends  of  course  on  the  view  taken  of  God's  relation  to  the 
world,  what  is  the  degree  or  kind  of  influence  to  be  ascribed  to 
Him  in  promoting  the  reformation  or  sanctification  of  men.  Ac- 
cording to  the  mechanical  theory,  adopted  by  Deists,  Rationalists, 
or  (as  they  are  often  called  in  distinctit)n  from  Supernaturalists) 
Naturalists,  there  is  no  exercise  of  the  power  of  God  on  the  minds 
of  men.  As  He  leaves  the  external  world  to  the  control  of  the 
laws  of  nature,  so  He  leaves  the  world  of  mind  to  the  control  of 
its  own  laws.  But  as  almost  all  systems  of  philosophy  assume  a 
more  intimate  relation  between  the  Creator  and  his  creatures 
than  this  theory  acknowledges,  it  follows  that  confounding  the 
providential  agency  of  God  over  his  creatures  with  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  admits  of  the  ascription  to  Him  of  an  agency 
more  or  less  direct  in  the  I'egeneration  and  sanctification  of  men. 

According  to  the  common  doctrine  of  Theism  second  causes 
have  a  real  efficiency,  but  they  are  ni)held  and  guided  in  their 
operation  by  the  omnipresent  and  universally  active  efficiency  of 
God  ;  so  that  the  effects  produced  are  properly  referred  to  God. 
He  sends  rain  upon  the  earth  ;  He  causes  the  grass  to  grow  ;  He 
fashions  the  eye  and  forms  the  ear;  and  He  feeds  the  young 
ravens  when  they  cry.  All  the  operations  of  nature  in  the  exter- 
nal world,  which  evince  design,  are  due  not  to  the  woqj^ing  of  blind 
physical  laws,  but  to  those  laws  as  constantly  guided  by  the  mind 
and  will  of  God.  In  like  manner  He  is  said  to  control  the  laws  of 
mind  ;  to  sustain  and  direct  the  operation  of  moral  causes.  His 
relation  to  the  world  of  mind  is,  in  this  point,  analogous  to  his  rela- 

1  De  Wette's  Dofjmatlk,  §  167.  (  ?) 


§3.]  COMMON   GRACE.  659 

tion  to  the  material  world.  And  in  the  same  sense,  and  for  the 
same  reason  that  He  is  said  to  give  a  plentiful  harvest,  He  is  said 
to  make  men  fruitful  in  good  feeling  and  in  good  works.  Conver- 
sion, according  to  this  view,  is  just  as  much  a  natural  process  as 
intellectual  culture,  or  the  growth  of  vegetables  or  animals.  This 
is  the  doctrine  of  Rationalists  as  distinguished  from  Supernatural- 
ists. 

Many  philosophical  systems,  liowever,  ignore  all  second  causes. 
They  assume  that  effects  are  due  to  the  immediate  agency  of  God. 
This  is  the  doctrine  not  only  of  Pantheists,  but  also  of  many  Chris- 
tian philosophers.  This  idea  is  involved  in  the  theory  of  occasional 
causes,  and  in  the  doctrine  so  popular  at  one  time  among  tiieolo- 
gians  that  preservation  is  a  continual  creation.  If  God  creates  the 
universe  ex  nihilo  every  successive  moment,  as  even  President 
Edwards  strenuously  asserts,  then  all  effects  and  changes  are  the 
product  of  his  omnipotence,  and  the  efficiency  or  agency  of  second 
causes  is  of  necessity  excluded.  According  to  this  doctrine  there 
can  be  no  distinction  between  the  operations  of  nature  and  those 
of  grace.  The  same  thing  is  obviously  true  in  reference  to  the 
theory  of  Dr.  Emmons  and  the  high  Hopkinsians.  Dr.  Emmons 
teaches  tiiat  God  creates  all  the  volitions  of  men,  crood  or  bad. 
The  soul  itself  is  but  a  series  of  exercises.  First  in  chronological 
order  comes  a  series  of  sinful  volitions  ;  then,  in  some  cases,  not  in 
all,  this  is  followed  by  a  series  of  holy  volitions.  God  is  equally 
the  author  of  the  one  and  of  the  other.  This  is  true  of  all  mental 
exercises.  No  creature  can  originate  action.  God  is  the  only  real 
agent  in  the  universe.  According  to  this  doctrine  all  operations 
of  the  Spirit  are  merged  in  this  universal  providential  efficiency  of 
God  ;  and  all  distinction  between  nature  and  grace,  the  natural 
and  the  supernatural  is  obliterated. 

In  opposition,  therefore,  first,  to  the  proper  naturalistic  theory, 
which  excludes  God  entirely  from  his  works,  and  denies  to  Him 
any  controlling  influence  either  over  material  or  mental  operations 
and  effects  ;  secondly,  in  opposition  to  the  doctrines  which  identify 
the  operations  or  influence  of  the  Spirit  with  tlie  |)Ower  of  the 
truth  ;  and  thirdly,  in  opposition  to  the  theory  which  ignores  the 
difference  between  the  providential  efficiency  of  God  and  the  oper- 
ations of  the  Holy  Spirit;  the  Scriptures  teach  that  the  influence 
of  the  Spirit  is  distinct  from  the  mere  power,  whether  natural  or 
supernatural,  of  the  truth  itself;  and  that  it  is  no  less  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  providential  efficiency  (or  potentia  ordinatd) 
of  God  which  cooperates  with  all  second  causes. 


660  PART  III.     Ch.   XIV.  —  vocation. 

There  is  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  distinct  from  the  Truth. 
As  to  the  first  of  these  points,  namely,  that  there  is  an  influence 
of  tlie  Spirit  on  the  minds  distinct  from  and  accessary  to  the  power 
of  the  truth,  whicli  attends  the  truth  sometimes  with  more,  and 
sometimes  with  less  power,  according  to  God's  good  pleasure,  the 
proof  from  Scripture  is  plain  and  abundant. 

1.  The  Bible  makes  a  broad  distinction  between  the  mere  hear- 
ers of  the  Word,  and  those  inwardly  taught  by  God.  When  our 
Lord  says  (John  vi.  44),  "  No  man  can  come  to  me  except  the 
Father  which  hath  sent  me  draw  him  ;  "  he  evidently  refers  to  an 
inward  drawing  and  teaching  beyond  that  effected  by  the  truth  as 
objectively  presented  to  the  mind.  All  the  power  which  the  truth 
as  truth  has  over  the  reason  and  conscience  is  exerted  on  all  who 
hear  it.  This  of  itself  is  declared  to  be  insufficient.  An  inward 
teaching  by  the  Spirit  is  absolutely  necessary  to  give  the  truth 
effect.  This  distinction  between  the  outward  teaching  of  the  Word 
and  the  inward  teaching  of  the  Spirit  is  kept  up  throughout  the 
Scriptures.  The  Apostle  in  1  Corinthians  i.  23-26,  as  well  as 
elsewhere,  says  that  the  gospel  however  clearly  preached,  however 
earnestly  enforced,  even  though  Paul  or  Apollos  were  the  teacher, 
is  weakness  and  foolishness,  without  power  to  convince  or  to  con- 
vert, unless  rendered  effectual  by  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit. 
"  The  called,"  therefoi-e,  according  to  the  Scriptures  are  not  the 
hearers  of  the  Word,  but  are  those  who  receive  an  inward  voca- 
tion by  the  Spirit.  All  whom  God  calls.  He  justifies,  and  all 
whom  He  justifies  He  glorifies.     (Rom.  viii.  30.) 

2.  The  reason  is  given  wh}'  the  truth  in  itself  is  inoperative, 
and  why  the  inward  teaching  of  the  Spirit  is  absolutely  necessary. 
That  reason  is  found  in  the  natural  state  of  man  since  the  fall. 
He  is  spiritually  dead.  He  is  deaf  and  blind.  He  does  not  re- 
ceive the  things  of  the  Spirit,  neither  can  he  know  them,  because 
they  are  spiritually  discerned.  It  is  therefore  those  only  who  are 
spiritual,  i.  g.,  in  whom  the  Spirit  dwells,  and  wliose  discernment, 
feelings  and  whole  life  are  determined  by  the  Spirit,  who  receive 
the  truths  which  are  freely  given  unto  all  who  hear  the  gospel. 
This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostle  as  delivered  in  1  Corinthians  ii. 
10-15.  And  such  is  the  constant  representation  of  the  woi'd  of 
God  on  this  subject. 

3.  The  Scriptures  therefore  teach  that  there  is  an  influence  of 
the  Spirit  required  to  prepare  the  minds  of  men  for  the  reception 
of  the  truth.     The  truth  is  compared  to  light,  which  is  absolutely 


§3.]  COMMON   GRACE.  661 

necessary  to  vision ;  but  if  the  eye  be  closed  or  blind  it  must  be 
opened  or  restored  before  the  light  can  produce  its  proper  impres- 
sion. The  Psalmist  therefore  prays,  "  Open  thou  mine  eyes,  that 
I  may  behold  wondrous  things  out  of  thy  law."  (Psalm  cxix.  18.) 
In  Acts  xvi.  14,  it  is  said  of  Lydia,  "Whose  heart  the  Lord  opened, 
that  she  attended  unto  the  things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul." 

4.  Accordingly  the  great  promise  of  the  Scriptures  especially  in 
reference  to  the  Messianic  period  was  the  effusion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  "  Afterward,"  said  the  prophet  Joel,  "  I  will  pour  out  my 
Spirit  upon  all  flesh  "  (ii.  28).  The  effects  which  the  Spirit  was 
to  produce  prove  that  something  more,  and  something  different 
from  the  power  of  the  truth  was  intended.  The  truth  however 
clearly  revealed  and  however  imbued  with  supernatural  energy 
could  not  give  the  power  to  prophesy,  or  to  dream  dreams  or  to  see 
visions.  The  Old  Testament  abounds  with  predictions  and  prom- 
ises of  this  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  was  to  attend  and  to 
render  effectual  the  clearer  revelation  of  the  things  of  God  to  be 
made  by  the  Messiah.  Isaiah  xxxii.  15,  "  Until  the  Spirit  be 
poured  upon  us  from  on  high,  and  the  wilderness  be  a  fruitful  field, 
and  the  fruitful  field  be  counted  for  a  forest."  Isaiali  xliv.  3,  "  I 
will  pour  water  upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the  dry 
ground  ;  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  upon 
thine  offspring."  Ezekiel  xxxix.  29,  "  I  have  poured  out  my  Spirit 
upon  the  house  of  Israel."  Zechariah  xii.  10,  "  I  will  pour  upon 
the  house  of  David,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the 
spirit  of  grace  and  of  supplications ;  and  they  shall  look  upon  me 
whom  they  have  pierced,  and  they  shall  mourn  for  him,  as  one 
mourneth  for  his  only  son." 

After  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord  He  directed  his  disciples  to 
remain  at  Jerusalem  until  they  were  imbued  with  power  from  on 
high.  That  is,  until  they  had  received  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
It  was  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  that  the  Spirit  descended  upon  the 
disciples,  as  the  Apostle  said,  in  fulfilment  of  the  predictions  of  the 
Old  Testament  prophets.  The  effect  of  his  influence  was  not  only 
a  general  illumination  of  the  minds  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  com- 
munication of  miraculous  gifts,  but  the  conversion  of  five  thousand 
persons  to  the  faith  at  once.  It  is  impossible  to  deny  that  these 
effects  were  due  to  the  power  of  the  Sj)irit  as  something  distinct 
from,  and  accessary  to,  the  mere  power  of  the  truth.  Thic  is  the 
explanation  of  the  events  of  the  day  of  Pentecost  given  by  the 
Apostle  Peter,  in  Acts  ii.  32,  33,  "  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised 
up,  whereof  we  all  are  witnesses.     Therefore  being  by  the  richt 


662  PART  in.    Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  prom- 
ise of  the  Holy  Ghost,  lie  hath  shed  forth  this,  which  ye  now  see 
and  hear."  This  was  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  which  Christ 
made  to  his  disciples  that  He  would  send  them  another  Comforter, 
even  the  Spirit  of  truth  who  should  abide  with  them  forever. 
(John  xiv.  16.)  That  Spirit  was  to  teach  them  ;  to  bring  all 
things  to  their  remembrance ;  He  was  to  testify  of  Christ ;  reprove 
the  world  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment;  and  he  was  to 
give  the  Apostles  a  mouth  and  wisdom  which  their  adversaries 
should  not  be  able  to  gainsay  or  resist.  Believers,  therefore,  are 
said  to  receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  They  have  an  unction  from  the 
Holy  One,  which  abides  with  them  and  teaches  them  all  things. 
(1  John  ii.  20  and  27.) 

When  our  Lord  says  (Luke  xi.  13),  that  our  Father  in  heaven 
is  more  willing  to  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  those  who  ask  Him,  than 
parents  are  to  give  good  gifts  unto  their  children,  He  certainly 
means  something  more  by  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  than  the  knowl- 
edge of  his  Word.  Thousands  hear  and  do  not  understand  or 
believe.  The  Spirit  is  promised  to  attend  the  teaching  of  the  Word 
and  to  render  it  effectual,  and  this  is  the  precious  gift  which  God 
promises  to  bestow  on  those  who  ask  it.  "  Hereby  we  know," 
says  the  Apostle,  "  that  he  abideth  in  us,  by  the  Spirit  which  he 
hath  given  us."  (1  John  iii.  24.)  The  Holy  Ghost,  therefore,  is 
a  gift.  It  is  a  gift  bestowed  on  those  who  already  have  the  Word, 
and  consequently  it  is  something  distinct  from  the  Word. 

5.  Another  clear  proof  that  the  Spirit  exercises  upon  the  minds 
of  men  an  influence  distinguishable  from  the  influence  of  the  truth 
either  in  the  Lutheran  or  Remonstrant  view,  is  that  those  Avho 
have  the  knowledge  of  the  Word  as  read  or  heard,  are  directed  to 
pray  for  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  render  that  Word  eftectual.  Of 
such  prayers  we  have  many  examples  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 
David,  in  Psalm  li.  11,  prays,  "  Take  not  thy  Holy  Spirit  from  me." 
The  Apostle  prays  in  behalf  of  the  Ephesians  to  whom  for  more 
than  two  years  he  had  been  j)reaching  the  Gospel,  that  God  would 
give  them  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  they  might  have  the  knowledge  of 
Him,  that  their  eyes  might  be  opened  to  know  the  hope  of  their 
calling,  and  the  iich(*s  of  the  glory  of  the  inheritance  of  the  saints, 
and  the  exceeding  greatness  of  the  power  of  which  they  Avere  the 
subjects.  (Eph.  i.  17-19.)  He  makes  a  similar  prayer  in  be- 
half of  the  Colossians.  (Col.  i.  9-11.)  On  the  other  hand  men 
are  warned  not  to  grieve  or  quench  the  Spirit  lest  he  should 
depart  from   them.     The  great  judgment  which  ever  hangs  over 


§3.]  COM^ION   GRACE.  663 

the  impenitent  hearers  of  the  Gospel  is,  that  God  may  withhold 
the  Holy  Spirit,  leaving  them  to  themselves  and  to  the  mere 
power  inherent  in  the  truth.  Such  are  reprobates ;  men  with 
whom  the  Spirit  has  ceased  to  strive.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that 
the  Scriptures  recognize  an  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which 
may  be  given  or  withheld,  and  which  is  necessary  to  give  the  truth 
any  power  on  the  heart. 

6.  The  Scriptures  therefore  always  recognize  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
the  immediate  author  of  regeneration,  of  repentance,  of  faith,  and 
of  all  holy  exercises.  He  dwells  in  believers,  controlling  their  in- 
ward and  outward  life.  He  enlightens,  leads,  sanctifies,  strength- 
ens, and  comforts.  All  these  efi^ects  are  attributed  to  his  agency. 
He  bestows  his  gifts  on  every  one  severally  as  he  will.  (1  Cor. 
xii.  11.)  The  Bible  does  not  more  clearly  teach  that  the  gifts  of 
tongues,  of  healing,  of  miracles,  and  of  wisdom,  are  the  fruits' of 
the  Spirit,  than  that  the  saving  graces  of  faith,  love,  and  hope  are 
to  be  referred  to  his  operations.  The  one  class  of  gifts  is  no  more 
due  to  the  inherent  power  of  the  truth  than  the  other.  The 
Apostle,  therefore,  did  not  depend  for  the  success  of  his  preaching 
upon  the  clearness  with  which  the  truth  was  presented,  or  the 
earnestness  with  which  it  was  enforced,  but  on  the  attending 
"  demonstration  of  the  Spirit."  (1  Cor.  ii.  4.)  He  gave  thanks 
to  God  tliat  the  Gospel  came  to  the  Thessalonians  "  not  in  word 
only,  but  also  in  power,  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  (1  Thess.  i. 
5.)  He  prayed  that  God  would  fulfil  in  them  "the  work  of  faith 
with  power."  (2  Thess.  i.  11.)  He  reminded  the  Philippians 
that  it  was  God  who  worked  in  them  "  both  to  will  and  to  do  of 
his  good  pleasure."  (Phil.  ii.  13.)  In  Hebrews  xiii.  21,  he 
prays  that  God  would  make  his  people  perfect,  working  in  them 
"  that  which  is  well-pleasing  in  his  sight."  Indeed,  every  prayer 
recorded  in  the  Scriptures  for  the  conversion  of  men,  for  their 
sanctification,  and  for  their  consolation,  is  a  recognition  of  the 
doctrine  that  God  works  on  the  mind  of  men  by  his  Holy  Spirit 
according  to  his  own  good  pleasure.  This  is  especially  true  of  the 
apostolic  benediction.  By  the  "  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
which  that  benediction  invokes,  is  meant  a  participation  in  the 
sanctifying  and  saving  influences  of  the  Spirit. 

7.  This  truth,  that  the  Spirit  does  attend  the  Word  and  ordi- 
nances of  God  by  a  power  not  inherent  in  the  Word  and  sacraments 
themselves,  but  granted  in  larger  or  less  measures,  as  God  sees  fit, 
is  inwrought  into  the  faith  of  the  whole  Christian  Church.  All 
the  Liturgies   of  the   Greek,  Latin,  and  Protestant  churches  are 


664  PART  in.   Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

filled  with  prayers  for  tlie  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  attend  the  Word 
and  sacraments.  Every  Christian  offers  such  prayers  daily  for 
himself  and  others.  The  whole  history  of  the  Church  is  full  of 
the  record  of  facts  which  are  revelations  of  this  great  doctrine. 
Why  were  thousands  converted  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when 
so  few  believed  under  the  preaching  of  Christ  himself?  Why 
during  the  apostolic  age  did  the  Church  make  such  rapid  progress 
in  all  parts  of  the  world  ?  Why  at  the  Reformation,  and  at  many 
subsequent  periods,  were  many  born  in  a  day  ?  Every  revival  of 
religion  is  a  visible  manifestation  of  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
accessary'  to  the  power  of  the  truth.  This,  therefore,  is  a  doctrine 
which  no  Christian  should  allow  himself  for  a  moment  to  call  into 
question. 

The  Influence  of  the  Spirit  may  he  without  the  Word. 

There  is  another  unscriptural  view  of  this  subject  which  must  at 
least  be  noticed,  although  its  full  consideration  belongs  to  another 
department.  Many  admit  that  there  is  a  supernatural  power  of 
the  Spirit  attending  the  Word  and  sacraments,  but  they  hold  that 
the  Spirit  is  confined  to  these  channels  of  communication  ;  that 
He  works  in  them  and  by  them  but  never  without  them.  On  this 
subject  Romanists  hold  that  Christ  gave  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the 
Apostles.  They  transmitted  the  gift  to  their  successors  the  bishops. 
Bishops  in  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  ordination  communicate  the 
grace  of  orders  to  the  priests.  In  virtue  of  this  grace  the  priests 
have  supernatural  power  to  render  the  sacraments  the  channels  of 
grace  to  those  who  submit  to  their  ministrations.  Those,  there- 
fore, who  are  in  the  Romish  Church,  and  those  only,  are,  through 
the  sacraments,  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  All  others, 
whether  adults  or  infants,  perish  because  they  are  not  partakers  of 
those  ordinances  through  which  alone  the  saving  influences  of  the 
Spirit  are  communicated.  This  also  is  the  doctrine  held  by  those 
called  Anfrlicans  in  the  Church  of  England. 

The  Lutheran  Church  rejected  with  great  earnestness  the  doc- 
trine of  Apostolic  Succession,  the  Grace  of  Orders,  and  the  Priest- 
hood of  the  Christian  Ministry  as  held  by  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Lutherans,  however,  taught  not  only  that  there  is  "  a  mystical 
luiion "  between  the  Spirit  and  the  Word,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  so  that  all  saving  effects  are  produced  by  the  power  inherent 
in  the  Word  itself,  and  that  the  Spirit  does  not  operate  on  the 
hearts  of  men  without  the  Word,  but  also  that  there  is  an  objec- 
tive supernatural  power  in  the  sacraments  themselves,  so  that  tiiey 


§3.]  COMMON   GRACE.  665 

are,  under  all  ordinary  circumstances,  the  necessary  me'^ans  of  sal- 
vation. 

The  Reformed,  while  they  teach  that,  so  far  as  adults  are  con- 
cerned, the  knowledge  of  the  Gospel  is  necessary  to  salvation,  yet 
hold  that  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  confined  neither  to 
the  Word  nor  to  the  sacraments.  He  works  when  and  where  He 
sees  fit,  as  in  the  times  of  the  Old  Testament  and  during  the 
Apostolic  age  his  extraordinary  gifts  were  not  conveyed  through  the 
medium  of  the  truth,  so  neither  now  are  the  gifts  for  ecclesiastical 
office,  nor  is  the  regeneration  of  infants,  effected  by  any  such 
instrumentality.  The  saving  efficacy  of  the  Word  and  sacraments 
where  they  take  effijot,  is  not  due  to  "  any  virtue  in  them  ;  .  .  .  . 
but  only  "  to  "  the  blessing  of  Christ,  and  the  working  of  his  Spirit 
in  them  that  by  faith  receive  them." 

The  Work  of  the  Spirit  is  distinct  from  Providential  Efficiency. 

As  grace,  or  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  not  inherent  in 
the  Word  or  sacraments,  so  neither  is  it  to  be  confounded  with 
the  providential  efficiency  of  God.  The  Scriptures  clearly  teach, 
(1.)  That  God  is  everywhere  present  in  the  world,  upholding  all 
the  creatures  in  being  and  activity.  (2.)  That  He  constantly 
cooperates  with  second  causes  in  the  'production  of  their  effects. 
He  fashioned  our  bodies.  He  gives  to  every  seed  its  own  body. 
(3.)  Besides  this  ordered  efficiency  (jpotentia  ordinatd),  which 
works  uniformly  according  to  fixed  laws.  He,  as  a  free,  personal, 
extramundane  Being,  controls  the  operations  of  these  fixed  laws,  or 
the  efficiency  of  second  causes,  so  as  to  determine  their  action  ac- 
cording to  his  own  will.  He  causes  it  to  rain  at  one  time  and  not  at 
another.  He  sends  fruitful  seasons,  or  He  causes  drought.  "  Elias 
....  prayed  earnestly  that  it  might  not  rain  ;  and  it  rained  not  on 
the  earth  by  the  space  of  three  years  and  six  months.  And  he 
prayed  again,  and  the  heaven  gave  rain,  and  the  earth  brought  forth 
her  fruit."  (James  v.  17, 18.)  (4.)  A  like  control  is  exercised  over 
mankind.  The  king's  heart  is  in  the  hands  of  the  Lord,  and  He 
turns  it  as  the  rivers  of  water  are  turned.  He  makes  poor  and 
makes  rich.  He  raises  up  one  and  puts  down  another.  A  man's 
heart  deviseth  his  way ;  but  the  Lord  directeth  his  steps.  By 
Him  kings  rule  and  princes  decree  justice.  Such,  according  to 
the  Scriptures,  is  the  providential  government  of  God  who  works 
all  things  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will. 

As  distinct  from  this  providential  control  which  extends  over  all 
creatures,  the  Scriptures  tell  of  the  sphere  of  the  S[)irit's  operations. 


666  PART  III.    Ch.  XIV.  — vocation. 

This  does  not  imply  that  the  Sjjirit  has  nothing  to  do  in  the  crea- 
tion, preservation,  and  government  of  the  world.  On  the  contrary, 
the  Bible  teaches  that  whatever  God  does  in  nature,  in  the  mate- 
rial world  and  in  the  minds  of  men.  He  does  through  the  Spirit. 
Nevertheless  the  Scriptures  make  a  broad  distinction  between 
providential  government,  and  the  operations  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
moral  irovernment  of  men  and  in  carrvin^  forward  the  iireat  plan 
of  redemption.  This  is  the  distinction  between  nature  and  grace. 
To  these  special  operations  of  the  Spirit  are  attributed,  — 

1.  The  revelation  of  truth.  Nothing  is  plainer  than  that  the 
great  doctrines  of  the  Bible  were  made  known  not  in  the  way  of 
tlie  orderly  development  of  the  race,  or  of  a  growth  in  human 
knowledge,  but  by  a  supernatural  intervention  of  God  by  the 
Spirit. 

2.  The  inspiration  of  the  sacred  writers,  who  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

3.  The  various  gifts,  intellectual,  moral,  and  physical,  bestowed 
on  men  to  qualify  them  for  the  special  service  of  God.  Some  of 
these  gifts  were  extraordinary  or  miraculous,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  Apostles  and  others  ;  others  were  ordinary,  i.  e.,  such  as  do 
not  transcend  the  limits  of  human  power.  To  this  class  belong 
the  skill  of  artisans,  the  cuurage  and  strength  of  heroes,  the  wis- 
dom of  statesmen,  the  ability  to  rule,  etc.  Thus  it  was  said  of 
Bezaleel,  "  I  have  filled  him  with  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  wisdom 
and  in  understanding  and  in  knowledge  and  in  all  manner  of 
workmanship,  to  devise  cunning  works,  to  work  in  gold,  and  in  sil- 
ver, and  in  brass."  (Exod.  xxxi.  3,  4.)  Of  the  seventy  elders 
chosen  by  Moses,  it  is  said,  "  I  will  take  of  the  Spirit  which  is  upon 
thee,  and  will  put  it  upon  them."  (Num.  xi.  17.)  Joshua  was 
appointed  to  succeed  Moses,  because  in  him  was  the  Spirit.  (Num. 
xxvii.  18.)  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon  "  Othniel  "  and 
he  judged  Israel."  (Judg.  iii.  10.)  So  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is 
said  to  have  come  upon  Gideon,  Jephtha,  and  Samson.  When 
Saul  was  called  to  be  king  over  Israel,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came 
upon  him;  and  when  he  was  rejected  for  disobedience,  the  Spirit 
departed  from  him.  (1  Sam.  xvi.  14.)  When  Samuel  anointed 
David,  it  is  said,  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon  David  from 
that  day  forward."  (1  Sam.  xvi.  13.)  In  like  manner  under 
the  new  dispensation,  "  There  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the  same 
Spirit."  (1  Cor.  xii.  4.)  And  by  these  gifts  some  were  made 
apostles,  some  prophets,  some  teachers,  some  workers  of  miracles. 
(1  Cor.  xii.  29.)     Paul,  therefore,  exhorted   the  elders  of  Ephe- 


§3.]  COMMON   GRACE.  667 

sus  to  take  heed  to  the   flock,  over  which   the  Holy  Ghost  liad 
made  them  overseers,      (Acts  xx.  28.) 

4.  To  tlie  Spirit  are  also  referred  conviction  of  sin,  rij^liteous- 
ness,  and  judoment ;  the  resistance  and  rehuke  of  evil  in  the  lieart ; 
strivings  and  warnino;s  ;  illumination  of  the  conscience;  conviction 
of  the  truth  ;  powerful  restraints  ;  and  temporary  faith  f  )unded  on 
moral  convictions  ;  as  well  as  rejjeneration,  sanctification,  consola- 
tion, strenoth,  perseverance  in  holiness,  and  final  glorification  both 
of  the  soul  and  of  the  body. 

All  these  effects  which  the  Bible  clearly  and  constantly  refers 
to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Rationalism  refers  to  second  causes  and  to 
the  attending  providential  efficiency  of  God.  It  admits  of  revela- 
tion, but  only  of  such  as  is  made  in  the  works  of  God  and  in  the 
constitution  of  our  nature,  apprehended  by  the  mind  in  its  normal 
exercises.  All  truth  is  discovered  by  the  intuitive  or  discursive 
operations  of  reason.  Inspiration  is  only  the  subjective  state  due 
to  the  influence  of  these  ti'uths  on  the  mind.  Miracles  are  dis- 
carded, or  referred  to  some  higher  law.  Or  if  admitted,  they  are 
allowed  to  stand  by  themselves,  and  all  other  subsequent  interven- 
tion of  God  in  controlling  the  minds  of  men  is  reduced  to  the  reg- 
ular process  of  human  develo])ment  and  progress.  The  Bible 
and  the  Church  universal  recognize  a  broad  distinction  between 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  and  the  operation  of  second  causes  as 
energized  and  controlled  b}^  the  general  efficiency  of  God.  It  is 
to  one  and  the  same  divine  agent  that  all  the  influences  which  con- 
trol the  conduct,  form  the  character,  and  renew  and  sanctify  the 
children  of  men,  are  to  be  referred  ;  that  by  his  energy  revealed 
the  truth  to  the  prophets  and  apostles,  rendered  them  infallible  as 
teachers,  and  confirmed  their  divine  missions  by  signs,  and  won- 
ders, and  divers  miracles.  The  former  class  no  more  belong  to 
the  category  of  nature  or  natural  operations,  than  the  latter. 
God  as  an  extramundane  S])irit,  a  personal  agent,  has  access  to  all 
other  spirits.  He  can  and  He  does  act  upon  them  as  one  spirit 
acts  upon  another,  and  also  as  only  an  Almighty  Spirit  can  act ; 
tliat  is,  producing  effects  which  God  alone  can  accomplish. 

The  Bible  therefore  teaches  that  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  Spirit  of 
truth,  of  holiness,  and  of  life  in  all  its  forms,  is  present  with  every 
human  mind,  enforcing  truth,  restraining  from  evil,  exciting  to 
good,  and  imparting  wisdom  or  strength,  when,  where,  and  in  what 
measxu'e  seemeth  to  Him  good.  In  this  sphere  also  He  divides 
"  to  every  man  severally  as  He  will."  (1  Cor.  xii.  11.)  This  is 
what  in  theology  is  called  common  grace. 


668  PART  m.    Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

The  Influences  of  the  Spirit  granted  to  all  Men. 
That  there  is  a  divine   influence   of  the  Spirit  granted  to  all 
men,  is  plain  both  from  Scripture  and  from  experience. 

1.  Even  in  Genesis  vi.  3  (according  to  our  version),  it  is  said, 
"  My  Spirit  shall  not  always  strive  with  man."  The  Hebrew  verb 
^rn  means,  to  rule,  to  judge.  The  sense  of  the  passage  therefore 
may  be,  as  given  by  Gesenius,  De  Wette,  and  others,  "  Nicht  f  iir 
immer  soil  mein  Geist  walten  im  Menschen."  My  Spirit  shall  not 
alivays  rule  in  man.  But  this  means  more  than  the  Septuagint 
expresses  by  KaTa/j.^Lvrj  and  the  Vulgate  by  permanehit.  The 
Spirit  of  God,  as  Keil  and  Delitzsch  properly  remark,  is  the  prin- 
ciple of  s])iritual  as  well  as  of  natural  life.  What  God  threatened 
was  to  withdraw  his  Spirit  from  men  on  account  of  their  wicked- 
ness, and  to  give  them  up  to  destruction.  This  includes  the  idea 
expressed  in  the  English  version  of  the  passage.  The  Spirit  of 
God  had  hitherto  exerted  an  influence  in  the  government  of  men, 
which,  after  the  appointed  time  of  delay,  was  to  cease.  Rosen- 
miiller's  explanation  is,  "  Non  feram,  ut  Spiritus  meus,  per  prophe- 
tas  admonens  homines,  ab  his  in  perpetuum  contemnatur :  pu- 
niam  !  "  The  clause  per  prophetas  admonens  has  nothing  in  the 
text  to  suggest  or  justify  it.  It  is  inserted  because  Rosen miiller 
admitted  no  influence  of  the  Spirit  that  was  not  indirect  or  me- 
diate. 

2.  The  martyr  Stephen  (Acts  vii.  51)  tells  the  Jews,  "  As  your 
fathers  did  ....  ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost,"  as  the 
prophet  Isaiah  Ixiii.  10,  said  of  the  men  of  his  generation,  that  they 
vexed  God's  Holy  Spirit.  The  Spirit,  therefore,  is  represented  as 
striving  with  the  wicked,  and  with  all  men.  They  are  charged 
with  resisting,  grieving,  vexing,  and  quenching  his  operations. 
This  is  the  familiar  mode  of  Scriptural  representation.  As  God  is 
everywhere  present  in  the  material  world,  guiding  its  operations 
according  to  the  laws  of  nature;  so  He  is  everywhere  present  with 
the  minds  of  men,  as  the  Spirit  of  truth  and  goodness,  operating 
on  them  according  to  the  laws  of  their  free  moral  agencv,  inclining 
them  to  crood  and  restrainino;  them  from  evil. 

3.  That  the  Spirit' does  exercise  this  general  influence,  common 
to  all  men,  is  further  plain  from  what  the  Scriptures  teach  of  the 
reprobate.  There  are  men  from  whom  God  withdi'aws  the  re- 
sti'uints  of  his  Spirit;  whom  for  their  sins,  He  gives  up  to  them- 
selves and  to  the  power  of  evil.  This  is  represented  as  a  fearful 
doom.      It  fell,  as  the  Apostle  teaches,  upon  tlie   heathen  world  for 


§3.]  COMMON   GRACE.  669 

their  impiety.  As  they  "  changed  the  truth  of  God  into  a  h'e,  and 
worshipped  and  served  the  creature  more  than  the  Creator  .... 
God  gave  them  up  unto  vile  affections  ....  As  they  did  not  like 
to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge,  God  gave  them  over  to  a  repro- 
bate mind."  (Rom.  i.  25-28.)  "  My  people  would  not  liearken  to 
my  voice :  and  Israel  would  none  of  me.  So  I  gave  them  up  unto 
their  own  hearts'  lusts :  and  they  walked  in  their  own  counsels." 
(Ps.  Ixxxi.  11, 12.)  As  men  are  warned  against  grieving  the  Spirit ; 
as  they  are  taught  to  pray  that  God  would  not  take  his  Holy 
Spirit  from  them  ;  as  Avithdrawing  the  Spirit  from  any  individual 
or  people  is  represented  as  a  direful  judgment,  the  fact  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  does  operate  on  the  minds  of  all  men,  to  a  greater 
or  less  degree,  is  clearly  taught  in  Scripture. 

4.  The  Bible  therefore  speaks  of  men  as  partakers  of  the  Spirit 
who  are  not  regenerated,  and  who  finally  come  short  of  eternal 
life.  It  not  only  speaks  of  men  repenting,  of  their  believing  for  a 
time,  and  of  their  receiving  the  Word  with  joy,  but  still  further  of 
their  being  enlightened,  of  their  tasting  of  the  heavenly  gift,  and 
of  their  being  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost.   (Heb.  vi.  4.) 

Argument  from  Experience. 

What  is  thus  taught  in  Scripture  is  confirmed  by  the  experience 
of  every  man,  and  of  the  Church  in  the  whole  course  of  its  history. 
God  leaves  no  man  without  a  witness.  No  one  can  recall  the 
time  when  he  was  not  led  to  serious  thouglits,  to  anxious  inquiries, 
to  desires  and  efforts,  which  he  could  not  rationally  refer  to  the 
operation  of  natural  causes.  These  effects  are  not  due  to  the 
mere  moi*al  influence  of  the  truth,  or  to  the  influence  of  other 
men  over  our  minds,  or  to  the  operation  of  the  circumstances  in 
which  we  may  be  placed.  There  is  something  in  the  nature  of 
these  experiences,  and  of  the  way  in  which  they  come  and  go, 
which  proves  that  they  are  due  to  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  of 
God.  As  the  voice  of  conscience  has  in  it  an  authority  Avhich  it 
does  not  derive  from  ourselves,  so  these  experiences  have  in  them 
a  character  which  reveals  the  source  whence  they  come.  They 
are  the  effects  of  that  still  small  voice,  which  sounds  in  every 
human  ear,  saying,  This  is  the  way  ;  walk  ye  in  it.  This  is  much 
more  obvious  at  one  time  than  at  others.  There  are  seasons  in 
every  man's  life,  when  he  is  almost  overwhelmed  with  the  power 
of  these  convictions.  He  may  endeavour  to  suppress  them  by 
an  effort  of  the  will,  by  arguments  to  prove  them  to  be  unreason- 
able, and  by  diverting  his  mind  by  business  or  amusement,  without 


670  PART  III.    Ch.  XIV.  — vocation. 

success.  God  reveals  Himself  as  distinctly  in  the  workings  of 
our  inward  nature  as  He  does  in  the  outward  world.  Men  feel 
that  they  are  in  the  hands  of  God  ;  that  He  speaks  to  them, 
argues  with  them,  expostulates,  reproyes,  exhorts,  and  persuades 
them.  And  they  know  that  they  are  resisting  Him,  when  they 
are  striving  to  stifle  this  mysterious  voice  within  them. 

During  the  apostolic  period  the  Spirit,  in  fulfilment  of  the  proph- 
ecy of  Joel,  was  poured  out  on  all  classes  of  men.  The  effects 
of  his  influence  were,  (1)  The  various  spiritual  gifts,  whether 
miraculous  or  ordinary,  then  so  abundantly  enjoyed.  (2.)  The 
regeneration,  holiness,  zeal,  and  devotion  of  the  multitudes  added 
to  the  Church.  And  (3.)  The  moral  conviction  of  the  truth,  the 
excitement  of  all  the  natural  affections,  temporary  faith,  repent- 
ance, and  reformation.  The  latter  class  of  effects  was  just  as 
conspicuous  and  as  undeniable  as  either  of  the  others.  And  such 
has  been  the  experience  of  the  Church  in  all  ages.  Whenever 
and  wherever  the  Spirit  has  been  manifested  to  a  degree  in  anv 
measure  analogous  to  the  revelation  of  his  presence  and  power  on 
the  da}'  of  Pentecost,  while  many  have  been  truly  born  of  God, 
more  have  usually  been  the  subjects  of  influences  which  did  not 
issue  in  genuine  conversion. 

The  evidence  therefore  from  Scripture,  and  from  experience,  is 
clear  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  present  with  every  human  mind,  and 
enforces,  with  more  or  less  power,  whatever  of  moral  or  religious 
truth  the  mind  may  have  before  it. 

The  Effects  of  Common  Grace. 

The  effects  produced  by  conniion  grace,  or  this  influence  of  the 
Spirit  comtnon  to  all  men,  are  most  important  to  the  individual  and 
to  the  world.  What  the  external  world  would  be  if  left  to  the 
blind  operation  of  physical  causes,  without  the  restraining  and 
guiding  influence  of  God's  providential  efficiency,  that  would  the 
world  of  mind  be,  in  all  its  moral  aud  religious  manifestations, 
without  the  restraints  and  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  There 
ai'e  two  ways  in  which  we  may  learn  what  tlie  effect  would  be  of 
the  withholding  the  Spirit  from  the  minds  of  men.  The  flrst  is, 
the  consideration  of  the  effects  of  reprobation,  as  taught  in  Scrip- 
ture and  by  experience,  in  the  case  of  individual  men.  Such  men 
have  a  seared  conscience.  They  are  reckless  and  indifferent,  and 
entirely  under  the  control  of  the  evil  passions  of  their  nature. 
This  state  is  consistent  with  external  decorum  and  polisli.  Men 
may  be  as  whitened   sepulchres.     But   this  is  a  restraint  which  a 


§3.]  COMMON   GRACE.  671 

wise  regard  to  their  greatest  selfish  gratification  places  on  the  evil 
principles  wliich  control  them.  The  effects  of  reprobation  are  de- 
picted in  a  fearful  manner  by  the  Apostle  in  the  first  chapter  of  his 
Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Not  only  individuals,  but  peoples  and 
churches  may  be  thus  abandoned  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  then 
unbroken  spiritual  death  is  the  inevitable  consequence.  But,  in 
the  second  place,  the  Scriptures  reveal  the  effect  of  the  entire 
withdrawal  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  control  of  rational  creat- 
ures, in  the  account  which  they  give  of  the  state  of  the  lost,  both 
men  and  angels.  Heaven  is  a  place  and  state  in  which  the  Spirit 
reigns  witli  absolute  control.  Hell  is  a  place  and  state  in  which 
the  Spirit  no  longer  restrains  and  controls.  The  presence  or  ab- 
sence of  the  Spirit  makes  all  the  difference  between  heaven  and 
hell.  To  the  general  influence  of  the  Spirit  (or  to  common  grace), 
we  owe,  — 

1.  All  the  decorum,  order,  refinement,  and  virtue  existing 
among  men.  Mere  fear  of  future  punishment,  the  natural  sense 
of  right,  and  the  restraints  of  human  laws,  would  prove  feeble  bar- 
riers to  evil,  were  it  not  for  the  repressing  power  of  the  Spirit, 
which,  like  the  pressure  of  the  atmosphere,  is  universal  and  power- 
ful, although  unfelt. 

2.  To  the  same  divine  agent  is  due  specially  that  genei'al  fear 
of  God,  and  that  religious  feeling  which  prevail  among  men,  and 
which  secure  for  the  rites  and  services  of  religion  in  all  Its  forms, 
the  decorous  or  more  serious  attention  which  they  receive. 

3.  Tlie  Scriptures  refer  to  this  general  Influence  of  the  Spirit 
those  religious  experiences,  varied  In  character  and  degree,  which 
so  often  occur  where  genuine  conversion,  or  regeneration  does  not 
attend  or  follow.  To  this  reference  has  already  been  made  in  a 
general  vvay  aS  a  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  common  grace.  The 
great  diversity  of  these  religious  experiences  is  due  no  doubt 
partly  to  the  different  degrees  of  religious  knowledge  which  men 
possess ;  partly  to  their  diversity  of  culture  and  character ;  and 
partly  to  the  measure  of  divine  influence  of  which  they  are  the 
subjects.  In  all  cases,  however,  there  is  in  the  first  ])lace  a  con- 
viction of  the  truth.  All  the  great  doctrines  of  religion  have  a 
selt'-evldencinfi:  lijiht  ;  an  evidence  of  their  truth  to  which  nothino- 
but  the  blindness  and  hardness  of  heart  j)roduced  by  sin,  can  ren- 
der the  mind  insensible.  Men  may  argue  themselves  Into  a  theo- 
retical (lisl)c'lii'f  of  the  being  of  God,  of  the  obligation  of  the  moral 
law,  and  of  a  future  state  of  retribution.  But  as  these  truths 
address    themselves    to   our    nioi'al    constitution,   which  we  cannot 


672  PART  III.    Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

change,  no  amount  of  sophistry  can  obscure  their  convincing  light, 
if  our  moral  nature  be  aroused.  The  same  is  true  also  of  the 
Bible.  It  is  the  Word  of  God.  It  contains  internal  evidence  of 
being  his  Word.  All  that  is  necessary  to  produce  an  irresistible 
conviction  of  its  truth  is  that  the  veil  which  sin  and  the  God  of 
this  world  have  spread  over  the  mind,  should  be  removed.  This  is 
done,  at  least  sufficiently  to  admit  light  enough  to  produce  con- 
viction, whenever  the  moral  elements  of  our  nature  assume  their 
legitimate  power.  Hence  it  is  a  matter  of  common  observation 
that  a  man  passes  suddenly  from  a  state  of  scepticism  to  one  of 
firm  belief,  without  any  arguments  being  addressed  to  his  under- 
standing, but  simply  by  a  change  in  his  inward  moral  state. 
When,  as  the  Bible  expresses  it,  "  the  eyes  of  the  heart  "  are  thus 
opened,  he  can  no  more  doubt  the  truths  perceived,  than  he  can 
doubt  the  evidence  of  his  senses. 

In  the  second  place,  with  this  conviction  of  the  truths  of  religion 
is  connected  an  experience  of  their  power.  They  produce  to  a 
greater  or  less  degree  an  effect  upon  the  feelings  appropriate  to 
their  nature  ;  a  conviction  of  sin,  the  clear  perception  that  what 
the  Bible  and  the  conscience  teach  of  our  guilt  and  pollution,  pro- 
duces self-condemnation,  remorse,  and  self-abhorrence.  These  are 
natural,  as  distinguished  from  gracious  affections.  They  are  ex- 
perienced often  by  the  unrenewed  and  the  wicked.  A  sense  of 
God's  justice  necessarily  produces  a  fearful  looking  for  of  judg- 
ment. Those  who  sin,  the  Apostle  says,  know  the  righteous  judg- 
ment of  God,  that  they  who  do  such  things  are  worthy  of  death. 
(Rom.  i.  32.)  The  attending  conviction  of  entire  helplessness  ; 
of  tiie  soul's  utter  inability  either  to  make  expiation  for  its  guilt, 
or  to  destroy  the  inward  power  of  sin,  and  wash  away  its  defile- 
ment, tends  to  produce  absolute  despair.  No  human  suffering  is 
more  intolerable  than  that  which  is  often  experienced  even  in  this 
life  from  these  sources.  "  Heu  me  miserum  et  nimis  miserum  ! 
nimis  enim  miserum,  quem  torquet  conscientia  sua  quam  fugere  non 
potest !  nimis  enim  miserum  quem  exspectat  damnatio  sua,  quam 
vitare  non  potest !  Nimis  est  infelix,  qui  sibi  ipsi  est  horribilis  ; 
nimis  infelicior,  cui  mors  seterna  erit  sensibilis.  Nimis  aerumnosus, 
quem  terrent  continui  de  sua  infelicitate  horrores."  ^ 

It  is  also  natural  and  according  to  experience,  that  the  promise 
of  the  Gospel,  and  the  exhibition  of  tlie  plan  of  salvation,  con- 
tained in  the  Scriptures,  which  commend  themselves  to  the  enlight- 

1  Augustine,  De  Contrkione  Cordis,  Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris,  1837,  vol.  vi.  ap- 
pendix, p.  1376,  c. 


§3.]  COMMON   GRACE.  673 

ened  conscience,  should  often  appear  not  only  as  true  but  as  suited 
to  the  condition  of  the  awakened  sinner.  Hence  he  receives  the 
Word  with  joy.  He  believes  with  a  faith  founded  on  tliis  moral 
evidence  of  the  truth.  This  faith  continues  as  long  as  the  state  of 
mind  by  which  it  is  produced  continues.  When  that  changes,  and 
the  sinner  relapses  into  his  wonted  state  of  insensibility,  his  faith 
disappears.  To  this  class  of  persons  our  Saviour  refers  when  He 
speaks  of  those  who  receive  the  Word  in  stony  places  or  among 
thorns.  Of  such  examples  of  temporary  faith  there  are  numerous 
instances  given  in  the  Scriptures,  and  they  are  constantly  occurring 
within  our  daily  observation. 

In  the  third  place,  the  state  of  mind  induced  by  these  common 
operations  of  the  Spirit,  often  leads  to  reformation,  and  to  an 
externally  religious  life.  The  sense  of  the  truth  and  importance 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  constrains  men  often  to  great  strict- 
ness  of  conduct  and  to  assiduous  attention  to  religious  duties. 

The  experiences  detailed  above  are  included  in  the  "  law  work  " 
of  which  the  older  theologians  were  accustomed  to  speak  as  gen- 
erally preceding  regeneration  and  the  exercise  of  saving  faith  in 
Christ.  They  often  occur  before  genuine  conversion,  and  perhaps 
more  frequently  attend  it ;  but  nevertheless  they  are  in  many 
cases  neither  accompanied  nor  followed  by  a  real  change  of  heart. 
They  may  be  often  renewed,  and  yet  those  who  are  their  subjects 
return  to  their  normal  state  of  unconcern  and  worldliness. 

No  strictness  of  inward  scrutiny,  no  microscopic  examination  or 
delicacy  of  analysis,  can  enable  an  observer,  and  rarely  the  man 
himself,  to  distinguish  these  religious  exercises  from  those  of  the 
truly  regenerated.  The  words  by  Avhich  they  are  described  both 
in  the  Scriptures  and  in  ordinary  Christian  discourse,  are  the 
same.  Unrenewed  men  in  the  Bible  are  said  to  repent,  to  believe, 
to  be  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  taste  the  good  Word  of 
God,  and  the  powers  of  the  world  to  come.  Human  language  is 
not  adequate  to  express  all  the  soul's  experiences.  The  same  word 
must  always  represent  in  one  case,  or  in  one  man's  experience, 
what  it  does  not  in  the  experience  of  another.  That  there  is  a 
specific  difference  between  the  exercises  due  to  common  grace,  and 
those  experienced  by  the  true  children  of  God,  is  certain.  But 
that  difference  does  not  reveal  itself  to  the  consciousness,  or  at 
least,  certainly  not  to  the  eye  of  an  observer.  "  By  their  fruits  ye 
shall  know  them."  This  is  the  test  given  by  our  Lord.  It  is  only 
when  these  experiences  issue  in  a  holy  life,  that  their  distinctive 
character  is  known. 
VOL.  II.  43 


674  PART  m.    Ch.  XIV.— vocation. 

As  to  the  nature  of  the  Spirit's  work,  which  He  exercises,  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree,  on  the  minds  of  all  men,  the  words  of  our 
Lord  admonish  us  to  speak  with  caution.  "  The  wind  bloweth 
where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not 
tell  whence  it  cometh,  and  whither  it  goeth  :  so  is  every  one  that 
is  born  of  the  Spirit."  (John  iii.  8.)  This  teaches  that  the  mode 
of  the  Spirit's  operation  whether  in  regeneration  or  in  conviction, 
is  inscrutable.  If  we  cannot  understand  how  our  souls  act  on  our 
bodies,  or  how  evil  spirits  act  on  our  minds,  the  one  being  a  famil- 
iar fact  of  consciousness,  and  the  other  a  clear  fact  of  revelation,  it 
cannot  be  considered  strange  that  we  should  not  understand  how 
the  Holy  Spirit  acts  on  the  minds  of  men.  There  are  certain 
statements  of  the  Bible,  however,  which  throw  some  light  on  this 
subject.  In  the  first  place,  the  Scriptures  speak  of  God's  reason- 
ing with  men  ;  of  his  teaching  them  and  that  inwardly  by  his 
Spirit;  of  his  guiding  or  leading  them;  and  of  his  convincing, 
reproving,  and  persuading  them.  These  modes  of  representation 
would  seem  to  indicate  "  a  moral  suasion ; "  an  operation  in  accord- 
ance with  the  ordinary  laws  of  mind,  consisting  in  the  presenta- 
tion of  truth  and  urging  of  motives.  In  the  second  place,  so  far 
as  appears,  this  common  influence  of  the  Spirit  is  never  exercised 
except  through  the  truth.  In  the  third  place,  the  moral  and  relig- 
ious effects  ascribed  to  it  never  rise  above,  so  to  speak,  the  natural 
operations  of  the  mind.  The  knowledge,  the  faith,  the  conviction, 
the  remorse,  the  sorrow,  and  the  J03',  which  the  Spirit  is  said  to 
produce  by  these  common  operations,  are  all  natural  affections  or 
exercises  ;  such  as  one  man  may  measurably  awaken  in  the  minds 
of  other  men.  In  the  fourth  place,  these  common  influences  of 
the  Sj)irit  are  all  capable  of  being  effectually  resisted.  In  all  these 
respects  this  common  grace  is  distinguished  from  the  efficacious 
operation  of  the  Spirit  to  which  the  Scriptures  ascribe  the  regen- 
eration of  the  soul.  The  great  truth,  however,  that  concerns  us 
is  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  present  with  every  human  mind,  re- 
straining from  evil  and  exciting  to  good  ;  and  that  to  his  pi-esence 
and  influence  we  are  indebted  for  all  the  order,  decorum,  and  vir- 
tue, as  well  as  the  regard  for  religion  and  its  ordinances,  which 
exist  in  the  world.  And  consequently  that  the  greatest  calamity  that 
can  befall  an  individual,  a  church,  or  a  people,  is  that  God  should 
take  his  Holy  Spirit  from  them.  And  as  this  is  a  judgment  which, 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  does  often  come  upon  individuals, 
churches,  and  people,  we  should  above  all  things  dread  lest  we 
should  grieve  the  Spirit  or  quench  his  influences.     This  is  done  by 


§4.]  EFFICACIOUS  GRACE.  675 

resistance,  by  indulgence  in  sin,  and  especially,  by  denying  his 
agency  and  speaking  evil  of  his  work.  "  Whosoever  speaketh  a 
word  against  the  Son  of  Man  it  shall  be  forgiven  him  :  but  who- 
soever speaketh  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven 
him,  neither  in  this  world,  neither  in  the  world  to  come."  (Matt, 
xii.  32.) 

§  4.  Efficacious  Grace. 

Besides  those  operations  of  the  Spirit,  which  in  a  greater  or  less 
degree  are  common  to  all  men,  the  Scriptures  teach  that  the  cove- 
nant of  redemption  secures  the  Spirit's  certainly  efficacious  influ- 
ence for  all  those  who  have  been  given  to  the  Son  as  his  inheri- 
tance. 

Why  called  Efficacious. 

This  grace  is  called  efficacious  not  simply  ah  eventu.  According 
to  one  view  the  same  influence  at  one  time,  or  exerted  on  one  per- 
son, produces  a  saving  effect ;  and  at  other  times,  or  upon  other 
persons,  fails  of  such  effect.  In  the  one  case  it  is  called  efficacious, 
and  in  the  other  not.  This  is  not  what  Augustinians  mean  by  the 
term.  By  the  Semi-Pelagians,  the  Romanists,  and  the  Arminians, 
that  influence  of  the  Spirit  which  is  exerted  on  the  minds  of  all 
men  is  called  "  sufficient  grace."  By  the  two  former  it  is  held  to 
be  sufficient  to  enable  the  sinner  to  do  that  which  will  either  merit 
or  secure  larger  degrees  of  grace  which,  if  duly  improved,  will 
issue  in  salvation.  The  Arminians  admit  that  the  fall  of  our  race 
has  rendered  all  men  utterly  unable,  of  themselves,  to  do  anything 
truly  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God.  But  they  hold  that  this  ina- 
bility, arising  out  of  the  present  state  of  human  nature,  is  removed 
by  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  given  to  all.  This  is  called  "  gracious 
ability  "  ;  that  is,  an  ability  due  to  the  grace,  or  the  supernatural 
influence  of  the  Spirit  granted  to  all  men.  On  both  these  points 
the  language  of  the  Remonstrant  Declaration  or  Confession  is  ex- 
plicit- It  is  there  said,  "  Man  has  not  saving  faith  from  himself, 
neither  is  he  regenerated  or  converted  by  the  force  of  his  own  free 
will  ;  since,  in  the  state  of  sin,  he  is  not  able  of  and  by  himself  to 
think,  will,  or  do  any  good  thing,  —  any  good  thing  that  is  saving 
in  its  nature,  particularly  conversion  and  saving  faith.  But  it  is 
necessary  that  he  be  regenerated,  and  wholly  renewed  by  God  in 
Christ,  through  the  truth  of  the  gospel  and  the  added  energy  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  —  in  intellect,  affections,  will,  and  all  his  facul- 
ties, —  so  that  he  may  be  able  rightly  to  perceive,  meditate  upon, 
will,  and  accomplish  that  which  is  a  saving  good."  ^     On  the  point 

1  Confessio  Remonstrant ium,  xvii.  5;  F.piscopii  Opera,  edit.  Rotterdam,  1665,  vol.  ii.  pp.88, 


676  PART  in.   Ch.  XIV.— vocation. 

of  sufficient  grace  the  Declaration  says :  "  Although  there  is  the 
greatest  diversity  in  the  degrees  in  which  grace  is  bestowed  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  divine  will,  yet  the  Holy  Ghost  confers,  or  at 
least  is  ready  to  confer,  upon  all  and  each  to  whom  the  word  of 
faith  is  ordinarily  preached,  as  much  grace  as  is  sufficient  for  gen- 
erating faith  and  carrying  forward  their  conversion  in  its  successive 
stages.  Thus  sufficient  grace  for  faith  and  conversion  is  allotted  not 
only  to  those  who  actually  believe  and  are  converted,  but  also  to 
those  who  do  not  actually  believe  and  are  not  in  fact  converted."  ^ 
In  the  Apology  for  the  Remonstrance,  it  is  said,  "  The  Remon- 
strants asserted  that  the  servitude  to  sin,  to  which  men  {per  naturce 
conditionem)  in  their  natural  state,  are  subject,  has  no  place  in  a 
state  of  grace.  For  they  hold  that  God  gives  sufficient  grace  to 
all  who  are  called,  so  that  they  can  be  freed  from  that  servitude, 
and  at  the  same  time  they  have  liberty  of  will  to  remain  in  it  if 
they  choose." 2  In  the  Apology  it  is  expressly  stated,  "Gratia 
efficax  vocatur  .  .  .  .  ab  eventu,"  which  is  said  to  mean,  "  Ut 
statuatur  gratia  habere  ex  se  sufficientem  vim,  ad  producendum 
consensum  in  voluntate,  sed,  quia  vis  ilia  partialis  est,  non  posse 
exire  in  actum  sine  cooperaute  liberae  voluntatis  humanse,  ac 
proinde,  ut  effijctura  habeat,  pendere  a  libera  voluntate."  ^  Lim- 
borch  ^  teaches  the  same  doctrine.  "  Sufficiens  vocatio,  quando  per 
cooperationem  liberl  arbitrii  sortitur  suura  effectum,  vocatur  effi- 
cax." 

Augustinians  of  course  admit  that  common  grace  is  in  one  sense 
sufficient.     It  is  sufficient  to  render  men  inexcusable  for  their  im- 

89,  of  second  set.  "  Homo  itaque  salvificam  fidem  non  babet  ex  seipso;  neque  ex  arbitrii 
sui  liberi  viribus  regeneratur,  aut  convertitur:  quandoquidem  in  statu  peccati  nihil  boni, 
quod  quidem  salutare  bonum  sit  (cujusmodi  imprimis  est  conversio  et  fides  salvilica),  ex 
seipso,  vel  a  seipso,  vel  cogitare  potest,  nedum  velle,  aut  facere:  sed  necesse  est,  ut  a  Deo, 
in  Christo,  per  verbum  evangelii,  eique  adjunctam  Spiritus  Sancti  virtutem  regeneretur, 
atque  totus  renovetur;  puta  intellectu,  aft'ectibus,  voluntate,  omnibusque  viribus;  ut  salu- 
taria  bona  recte  possit  intelligere,  meditari,  velle,  ac  perticere." 

1  Confessio  Remonstrnntiuin^  xvii.  8;  p.  89,  a,  of  second  set.  "  Etsi  vero  maxima  est  gra- 
tise  disparitas,  pro  Uberrima  scilicet  voluntatis  divin^e  dispensatione:  tamen  Spiritus  Sanc- 
tus  omnibus  et  singulis,  quibus  verbum  fidei  ordinarie  prsedicatur,  tantum  gratia?  confert, 
aut  saltem  conferre  paratus  est,  quantum  ad  fidem  ingenerandum,  et  ad  promovendum  suis 
gradibus  salutarem  ipsorum  conversionem  sufficit.  Itaque  gratia  sufficiens  ad  fidem  et  con- 
versionem  non  tantum  iis  obtingit,  qui  actu  credunt  et  convertuntur:  sed  etiam  iis,  qui  actu 
ipso  non  credunt,  nee  reipsa  convertuntur." 

2  Apoloyia  pro  Confexsione  Remonstrnntium,  cap.  vi. ;  ul  supra,  p.  144,  b,  of  second  set. 
"  Keinonstrantes  asserunt  necessitatem  sive  servitutem  istam  peccati,  cui  homines,  per  naturae 
conditionem  subjecti  sunt,  locum  non  habere  sub  statu  gratiae.  Nam  statuunt,  vocatis  om- 
nibus gratiam  suflicientem  a  Deo  concedi,  ita  ut  possint  a  servitute  ilia  liberari,  et  simul 
manere  in  iis  voluntatis  libertatem,  ut  possint  eidem  servituti  manere  subjecti,  si  velint." 

8  Ibid.  cap.  xvii.  iii.;  p.  191,  b,  of  second  set. 

4  Theohgia  Christiana,  iv.  xii.  8,  edit.  Amsterdam,  1715,  p.  352,  b. 


§4.]  EFFICACIOUS   GRACE.  677 

penitence  and  unbelief.  This  Paul  says  even  of  the  light  of  nature. 
The  heathen  are  without  excuse  for  their  idolatry,  because  the 
eternal  power  and  Godhead  of  the  divine  Being  ai'e  revealed  to 
them  in  his  works.  Knowing  God,  they  glorified  Him  not  as  God. 
(Rom.  i.  20,  21.)  So  common  grace  is  sufficient  to  convince  men, 
(1.)  Of  sin  and  of  their  need  of  redemption.  (2.)  Of  the  truth 
of  the  gospel.  (3.)  Of  their  duty  to  accept  its  offers  and  to  live  in 
obedience  to  its  commands  ;  and  (4.)  Tliat  their  impenitence  and 
unbelief  are  due  to  themselves,  to  their  own  evil  hearts ;  that  they 
voluntarily  prefer  the  world  to  the  service  of  Christ.  These 
effects  the  grace  common  to  all  who  hear  the  gospel  tends  to  pro- 
duce. These  effects  it  does  in  fact  produce  in  a  multitude  of  cases, 
and  would  produce  in  all  were  it  not  resisted  and  quenched.  But 
it  is  not  sufficient  to  raise  the  spiritually  dead ;  to  change  the 
heart,  and  to  produce  regeneration  ;  and  it  is  not  made  to  produce 
these  effects  by  the  cooperation  of  the  human  will.  This  is  a  point 
which  need  not  be  discussed  separately.  The  Remonstrant  and 
Romish  doctrine  is  true,  if  the  other  parts  of  their  doctrinal  system 
are  true  ;  and  it  is  false  if  that  system  be  erroneous.  If  the  Au- 
gustinian  doctrine  concerning  the  natural  state  of  man  since  the 
fall,  and  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  election,  be  Scriptural,  then  it 
is  certain  that  sufficient  grace  does  not  become  efficacious  from  the 
cooperation  of  the  human  will.  Those  who  hold  the  last  men- 
tioned doctrine  reject  both  the  others  ;  and  those  who  hold  the  two 
former  of  necessity  reject  the  last.  It  is  not,  however,  only  in 
virtue  of  its  logical  relation  to  other  established  doctrines  that  the 
doctrine  of  sufficient  grace  is  rejected.  It  may  be  proved  to  be 
contrary  to  what  the  Scriptures  teach  on  regeneration  and  the 
mode  in  which  it  is  effected.  These  arguments,  however,  may  be 
more  properly  presented  when  we  come  to  the  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion. Why  the  grace  of  God  is  efficacious  in  the  work  of  conver- 
sion? 

Congruity. 

Another  erroneous  view  on  this  subject  is  that  the  influence  of 
tlie  Spirit  in  conversion  owes  its  efficacy  to  its  congruity.  By  this 
is  sometimes  meant  its  adaptation  to  the  state  of  mind  of  him  who 
is  its  subject.  When  a  man  is  in  one  state,  the  same  influence, 
both  as  to  kind  and  degree,  may  fail  to  produce  any  serious  impres- 
sion ;  when  in  a  different  and  more  favourable  frame  of  mind,  it 
may  issue  in  his  true  conversion.  In  this  view  the  doctrine  of 
congruity  does  not  differ  from  the  view  already  considered.  It 
supposes  that  the  subject  of  the  Spirit's  influence,  in  one  state  of 


678  PART  m.   Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

mind  resists,  and  in  another,  submits  to,  and  cooperates  with  it , 
and  that  its  efficacy  is  in  the  end  due  to  this  cooperation. 

Sometimes,  however,  more  is  meant  than  that  the  grace  is  con- 
gruous to  the  state  of  mind  of  its  subject.  Cardinal  Bellarmin 
objects  to  the  view  above  stated  tliat  it  assumes  that  the  reason  why 
one  man  believes  and  another  disbelieves,  is  to  be  found  in  the  free 
will  of  the  subject.  This,  he  says,  is  directly  contrary  to  what  the 
Apostle  says  in  1  Corinthians  iv.  7,  "  Who  maketh  thee  to  differ  ? 
And  what  hast  thou  that  thou  didst  not  receive  ?  "  "  Nam,"  he 
adds,  "  si  duo  sint,  qui  eandem  concionatorem  audiant,  et  eandem 
interius  inspirationem  habeant,  et  unus  credat,  alter  non  credat, 
nonne  dicere  poterit  is  qui  crediderit,  se  discerni  ab  infideli,  per 
liberum  arbitrium  quia  ipse  inspirationem  acceperit,  quam  alter 
rejecit?  nonne  gloriari  poterit  contra  infidelem,  quod  ipse  Dei  gra- 
tiae  cooperatus  sit,  quam  ille  contempsit  ?  et  tamen  Apostolus  hoc 
omnino  prohibet."  ^  Here  the  main  principle  which  distinguishes 
Anjrustinianism  from  all  other  schemes  of  doctrine  is  conceded. 
Why  does  one  man  repent  and  believe  the  Gospel,  while  another 
remains  impenitent  ?  The  Augustinian  says  it  is  because  God. 
makes  them  to  differ.  He  gives  to  one  what  He  does  not  give  to 
another.  All  Anti-Augustinians  say  that  the  reason  is,  that  the 
one  cooperates  with  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  other  does  not ;  or, 
the  one  yields,  and  the  other  does  not ;  or,  that  the  one  resists,  and 
the  other  does  not.  Bellarmin  here  sides  with  Augustine  and  Paul. 
His  own  theory,  however,  is  a  virtual  retraction  of  the  above  men- 
tioned concession.  He  says  that  the  different  results  in  the  cases 
supposed,  are  to  be  referred  to  the  congruity  between  the  influence 
exerted  and  the  state  of  mind  of  the  person  on  whom  that  influence 
is  exerted.  But  this  congruity  is  foreseen  and  designed.  God 
knows  just  what  kind  and  degree  of  influence  will  be  effectual  in 
determining  the  will  of  a  given  person,  under  given  circumstances, 
and  in  a  given  state  of  mind.  And  this  influence  he  determines 
to  exert  with  the  purpose  of  securing  the  sinner's  conversion,  and 
with  the  certain  foreknowledge  of  success.  Bellarmin  ^  says,  "  Ut 
efficacia  proveniat  non  tarn  ex  vehementia  persuasionis,  quam  ex 
dispositione  voluntatis,  quam  Deus  preevidet.  Nimirum  cum  Deus 
ita  pi'oponit  aliquid  interna  persuasione,  ut  videt  voluntatem  aptarn 
esse  ad  consentiendum."  And  again,  "  Infallibilitas  [rei]  non 
oriatur  ex  vehementia  motionis  divinaj,  sed  ex  prajvisione  aptitudi- 
nis  ipsius  voluntatis."^     In  one  view  this  seems  to  refer  the  cause 

1  De  Gratia  el  Libera  Arbiirio,  I.  xii.;   Dispulationes,  edit.  Paris,  1608,  vol.  iv.  p.  420,  d. 

2  Jbid.  IV.  ix. ;  Dispntaliones,  vol.  iv.  pp.  543  e,  544  a. 

*  See  Turrettin,  Institutio  Theologice,  locus  xv.  ques.  iv. 


§4.]  EFFICACIOUS   GRACE.  679 

of  the  difference  between  tlie  believer  and  the  unbeliever,  to  the 
purpose  of  God ;  as  it  is  He  who  foresees  and  intends  the  issue 
and  adapts  the  means  for  the  attainment  of  the  end.  But  really 
the  cause  of  the  difference  is  in  the  man  himself.  One  man  is  sus- 
ceptible and  yielding  ;  another  is  hard  and  obstinate.  Besides,  this 
view  as  well  as  the  preceding,  regards  the  influence  by  which  I'e- 
generation  is  effected,  as  a  mere  suasion,  which  is  contrary  to  the 
representations  of  Scripture.  It  ignores  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of 
the  natural  state  of  man  since  the  fall  as  one  of  spiritual  death  ; 
and  it  professedly  repudiates  that  of  the  divine  sovereignty.  It 
cannot,  therefore,  be  reconciled  with  the  Scriptures,  if  those  doc- 
trines are  taught,  as  all  Augustinians  believe,  in  the  Word  of  God. 
The  Jesuits  adopted  much  the  same  view  as  that  presented  by 
Bellarmin.  Molina,  in  his  celebrated  work,  "  Liberi  arbitrii  cum 
gratise  donis,  divina  prsescientia,  providentia,  praedestinatione  et 
reprobatione  concordia,"  says,  "  Una  et  eadem  est  natura  gratiae 
sufficientis  et  efficacis ;  a  nostro  arbitrio  et  libero  consensu  pendet, 
ut  efficax  fiat  nobis  consentientibus,  aut  inefficax,  nobis  dissentien- 
tibus.  Deus  infallibiliter  operatur  ope  scientice  medice :  vidit  per 
scientiam  rerum  sub  conditione  futurarum,  quem  hasc  aut  ilia 
gratia  etfectum  habitura  sit  in  homine,  si  detur  ;  ponit  decretum 
talem  larglendi,  cum  qua  prasvidet  consensuram  voluntatem  ;  talis 
gratia  est  efficax,  — itaque  prsescientia  non  fallitur."  ^ 

Neither  the  Symbols  of  the  Romish  Church,  nor  the  majority  of 
its  theologians  adopt  this  doctrine  of  Bellarmin.  They  make  the 
difference  between  sufficient  and  efficacious  grace  to  be  determined 
simply  by  the  event.  One  man  cooperates  with  the  grace  he  re- 
ceives, and  it  becomes  efficacious  ;  another  does  not  cooperate,  and 
it  remains  without  saving  effect.  On  this  point  the  Council  of 
Trent  ^  decided,  "  Si  quis  dixerit,  liberum  hominis  arbitrium  a  Deo 
motum,  et  excitatum  nihil  cooperari  assentiendo  Deo  excitant! 
atque  vocanti,  quo  ad  obtinendam  justificationis  gratiam  se  dis- 
ponat,  ac  praepai'et,  neque  posse  dissentire,  si  velit,  sed  velut  in- 
anime  quoddam  nihil  omnino  agere,  mereque  passive  se  habere, 
anathema  sit."  "  According  to  Catholic  principles,"  says  Mohler,^ 
"  two  agencies  are  combined  in  the  holy  work  of  regeneration,  a 
human  and  divine,  which  interpenetrate  each  other,  when  the  work 
is  effected  ;  so  that  it  is  a  divine-human  work.  God's  holy  power 
goes  before,  exciting,  awakening,  and  quickening,  without  the  man's 

1  See  Kijllner's  SymboUk,  Hamburg,  1844,  vol.  ii.  p.  334. 

2  Sess.  VI.  can.  iv. ;  Streitwolf,  Libri  Symbolici,  Gottingen,  1846,  p.  34. 
8  SymboUk,  6th  edit.  Mainz,  1843,  p.  105. 


680  PART  m.     Ch.    XIV.-  VOCATION. 

meriting,  procuring,  or  determining  this  influence,  but  he  must 
yield  to,  and  freely  follow  it."  This  he  confirms  by  citing  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Council  of  Trent. ^  "  Ut,  qui  per  peccata  a  Deo 
aversi  erant,  per  ejus  excitantem  atque  adjuvantem  gratiam  ad 
convertendum  se  ad  suam  ipsorum  justificationem  eidem  gratiae 
libere  assentiendo,  et  cooperando,  disponantur  :  ita  ut  tangente  Deo 
cor  hominis  per  Spiritus  Sancti  illuminationem,  neque  homo  ipse 
nihil  omnino  agat,  inspirationem  illam  recipiens,  quippe  qui  illam  et 
abjicere  potest,  neque  tamen  sine  gratia  Dei  movere  se  ad  justitiam 
coram  illo  libera  sua  voluntate  possit." 

Augustinian  Doctrine  of  Efficacious  Grace. 

According  to  the  Augustinian  doctrine  the  efficacy  of  divine 
grace  in  regeneration  depends  neither  upon  its  congruity  nor  upon 
the  active  cooperation,  nor  upon  the  passive  non-resistance  of  its 
subject,  but  upon  its  nature  and  the  purpose  of  God.  It  is  the 
exercise  of  "  the  mighty  power  of  God,"  who  speaks  and  it  is  done. 
This  is  admitted  to  be  the  doctrine  of  Augustine  himself.  He  says, 
"  Non  lege  atque  doctrina  insonante  forinsecus,  sed  interna  et 
occulta,  mirabili  ac  ineffabili  potestate  operari  Deum  in  cordibus 
hominum  non  solum  veras  revelationes,  sed  bonas  etiam  volun- 
tates."  2  "  Nolentem  praevenit,  ut  velit ;  volentem  subsequitur, 
ne  frustra  velit."  ^ 

The  Jansenists,  the  faithful  disciples  of  Augustine,  endeavoured 
to  revive  his  doctrine  in  the  Roman  Church.  Among  the  propo- 
sitions selected  from  their  writings  and  condemned  by  Pope 
Clement  XI.  in  the  famous  Bull,  Unigenitus,  are  the  following; 
"  Num.  ix..  Gratia  Christi  est  gratia  suprema,  sine  qua  Christum 
confiiteri  nunquam  possumus,  et  cum  qua  nunquam  ilium  abnega- 
mus.  1  Cor.  xii.  3.  Num.  x..  Gratia  est  nianus  omnipotentis 
Dei,  jubentis  et  facientis  quod  jubet.  Mar.  ii.  11.  Num.  xix.,  Dei 
gratia  nihil  aliud  est  quam  ejus  omnipotens  voluntas  :  haec  est  idea, 
quam  Deus  ipse  nobis  tradit  in  omnibus  suis  Scripturis.  Rom. 
xiv.  4.  Num.  xxi.,  Gratia  Jesu  Christi  est  gratia  fortis,  potens, 
suprema,  invincibilis,  utpote  quge  est  operatio  voluntatis  omnipo- 
tentis, sequela  et  imitatio  operationis  Dei  incarnantis  et  resusci- 
tantis   filium    suum.      2    Cor.    v.    21.     Num.    xxiv.,  Justa  idea, 

1  Sess.  VI.  cap.  iv. ;  Streitwolf,  Libri  SymboUci,  p.  23. 

2  De  Gratia  Christi  (xxiv.),  25;  Woi-ks,  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris,  1838,  vol.  x.  pp.  545, 
d,  546,  a. 

8  Enchiridion  de  Fide,  Spe  et  Charitate  (xxxii.),  9;  Works,  vol.  vi.  p.  363,  a.  For  a  full 
exposition  of  Augustine's  Theory  see  Wiggers,  Augustinism  and  Pelagianism,  ch.  xiii.  An- 
dover,  1840,  pp.  194-218. 


§  4  ]  EFFICACIOUS   GRACE.  681 

quam  centnrio  habet  de  omnipotentia  Del  et  Jesu  Christi  in  sanan- 
dis  corporibus  solo  motu  su^e  voluntatis,  est  imago  idese,  quas 
haberi  debet  de  omnipotentia  suae  gratise  in  sanandis  animabus  a 
cupiditate.     Luc.  vii.  7."  ^ 

It  is  not  a  matter  of  doubt  or  dispute  that  the  Reformed  Church 
adopted  the  Augustinian  doctrine  on  this  subject.  In  the  "  Second 
Helvetic  Confession,"  it  is  said,  "  Quantum  ad  bonum  et  ad  virtu- 
tes,  intellectus  hominis,  non  recte  judicat  de  divinis  ex  semetipso. 
....  Constat  vero  mentem  vel  intellectum,  ducem  esse  volun- 
tatis, cum  autem  coecus  sit  dux,  claret,  quousque  et  voluntas  per- 
tingat.     Proinde  nullum  est  ad  bonum  homini  arbitrium  liberum 

nondum   renato,   vires   nullse  ad   perficiendum  bonum In 

regeneratione  ....  voluntas  non  tantum  mutatur  per  Spiritum, 
sed  etiam  instruitur  facultatibus,  ut  sponte  velit  et  possit  bonum. 
....  Observandum  est  —  regenerates  in  boni  electione  et  opera- 
tione,  non  tantum  agere  passive,  sed  active.  Aguntur  enim  a  Deo, 
ut  agant  ipsi,  quod  agunt."'-^ 

The  Synod  of  Dort,^  "  Omnes  homines  in  peccato  concipiun- 
tur  ....  inepti  ad  omne  bonum  salutare  .  .  .  .  et  absque  Spirit- 
us  Sancti  regenerantis  gratia,  ad  Deum  redire,  naturam  deprava- 
tam  corrigere,  vel  ad  ejus  correctionem  se  disponere  nee  volunt, 
nee  possunt."  "  Fides  Dei  donum  est,  non  eo,  quod  a  Deo  hominis 
arbitrio  offeratur,  sed  quod  iiomini  reipsa  conferatur,  inspiretur,  et 
infundatur."^  Quando  Deus  ....  veram  in  electis  conversionem 
operatur,  non  tantum  evangelium  illis  externe  praedicari  curat  et 
mentem  eorum  per  Spiritum  Sanctum  potenter  illuminat,  .... 
sed  ejusdem  etiam  Spiritus  regenerantis  efficacia  ad  intima  hominis 
penetrat,  cor  clausum  aperit,  durum  emollit,  ....  voluntati 
novas  qualitates  infundit,  facitque  eam  ex  mortua  vivam,  ox  mala 
bonam,  ex  nolente  volentem."  ^ 

The  following  proposition  contains  one  of  the  positions  assumed 
by  Remonstrants  on  which  the  Synod  was  called  to  decide.  "  Op- 
eratio  gratise  in  prima  conversione  indifferens  est  et  resistibilis,  ut 
per  eam  possit  homo  converti  vel  non  converti :  nee  sequatur  ejus 
conversio  nisi  libero  assensu  ad  eam  se  determinet,  et  converti 
velit."  On  this  proposition  the  Theologians  of  the  Palatinate  in 
their  "  Judicium,"  after  referring  to  the  Remonstrant  idea  that 
regeneration  is  effected  by  moral  suasion,  say,  "  Scriptura  vero, 

1  See  Herzog's  Encyklopddie,  Art.  Unigenitus. 

2  IX. ;  Niemej'er,  Colltciio  Confessionum,  Leipzig,  1840,  pp.  479,  480. 
8  Cap.  III.  art.  iii. ;  Nieineyer,  p.  709. 

4  Cap.  III.  art.  xiv;  Jbid.  p.  711. 
6  Cap.  III.  art.  xi. ;  JblJ.  p.  710. 


682  PART  in.   ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

etsi  moralem  (qiiam  vocant)  suasionem  non  removet  ab  hoc  nego- 
tio  (quid  enim  est  totum  ministerium  reconciliationis,  quam  ejus- 
modi  commendatio  ac  suasio  ?  2  Cor.  v.  18-20),  praecipuam  ta- 
men  vim  conversionis  in  ea  minime  coUocat,  verum  in  actione 
longe  diviniore,  qua?  efficacia  nee  creationi,  nee  resuscitationi  mor- 

tuorum  quicquam  concedat Et  irresistibilis  quideni  est  turn 

ex  parte  gratise  Dei,  turn  ex  parte  voluntatis.  Ex  parte  gratice : 
quia  efficax  Dei  operatio  est  in  actu  posita,  cui  nemo  potest  resist- 
ere,  Rom.   ix.    19,    prout  Christus  de  gratia  sapientise  Apostolis 

datse  dixit :  cui  omnes  non  poterunt  resistere,  Luc.  xxi.  15 

Ex  parte  voluntatis  :  nam  subdita  gratia  efficaci  jam  non  vult 
resistere  :  et  quia  non  vult,  necessario  non  vult,  sicque  resistere 
velle  non  potest  salva  sua  libertate."  ^ 

Tiie  "  Westminster  Confession  "  ^  says,  "  All  those  whom  God 
hath  predestinated  unto  life,  and  those  only.  He  is  pleased,  in  his 
appointed  and  accepted  time,  effectually  to  call,  by  his  Word  and 
Spirit,  out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death  in  which  they  are  by 
nature,  to  grace  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ;  enlightening  their 
minds,  spiritually  and  savingly,  to  understand  the  things  of  God, 
taking  away  their  heart  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them  a  heart  of 
flesh  ;  renewing  their  wills,  and  by  his  almighty  power  determining 
them  to  that  which  is  good ;  and  effectually  drawing  them  to  Jesus 
Christ ;  yet  so  as  they  come  most  freely,  being  made  willing  by  his 
grace. 

"  II.  This  effectual  call  is  of  God's  free  and  special  grace  alone, 
not  from  anything  at  all  foreseen  in  man,  who  is  altogether  passive 
therein,  until,  being  quickened  and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
he  is  thereby  enabled  to  answer  this  call,  and  to  embrace  the  grace 
offered  and  conveyed  in  it. 

"  III.  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved 
by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when,  where,  and  how 
He  pleaseth.  So  also  are  all  other  elect  persons,  who  are  incapa- 
ble of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word." 

In  the  "  Larger  Catechism,"  ^  effectual  calling  is  declared  to  be 
"  the  work  of  God's  almighty  power  and  grace." 

The  Main  Principle  Involved. 

These  authoritative  declarations  of  the  faith  of  the  Reformed 
Church  agree  as  to  the  one  simple,  clear,  and  comprehensive  state- 

1  Acta  Synodi  DordrechtancB,  edit.  Leyden,  1620,  pp.  138,  139,  of  second  set. 

2  Chapter  x.  §§  1-3. 

8  Answer  to  the  67th  question. 


§4.]  EFFICACIOUS   GRACE.  683 

ment,  that  efficacious  grace  is  tlie  almighty  power  of  God.  There 
are,  as  has  been  before  remarked,  three  classes  into  which  all 
events  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge  may  be  arranged.  First, 
those  which  are  produced  by  the  ordinary  operations  of  second 
causes  as  guided  and  controlled  by  the  providential  agency  of  God. 
Secondly,  those  events  in  the  external  world  which  are  produced  by 
the  simple  volition,  or  immediate  agency  of  God,  without  the  co- 
operation of  second  causes.  To  this  class  all  miracles,  properly  so 
called,  belong.  Thirdly,  those  effects  produced  on  the  mind,  heart, 
and  soul,  by  the  volition,  or  immediate  agency  of  the  onmipotence 
of  God.  To  this  class  belong,  inward  revelation,  inspiration,  mirac- 
ulous powers,  as  the  gift  of  tongues,  gift  of  healing,  etc.,  and  re- 
generation. 

Efficacious  Crrace  Mysterious  and  Peculiar. 

If  this  one  point  be  determined,  namely,  that  efficacious  grace  is 
the  almighty  power  of  God,  it  decides  all  questions  in  controversy 
on  this  subject. 

1.  It  is  altogether  mysterious  in  its  operations.  Its  effects  are 
not  to  be  explained  rationally,  i.  e.,  by  the  laws  which  govern  our 
intellectual  and  moral  exercises.  To  this  aspect  of  the  case  our 
Lord  refers  in  John  iii.  8,  "The  wind  bloweth  where-it  listeth, 
and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it 
Cometh,  and  whither  it  goeth  :  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the 
Spirit."  Volumes  have  been  written  on  the  contrary  hypothesis  ; 
which  volumes  lose  all  their  value  if  it  be  once  admitted  that  re- 
generation, or  effectual  calling,  is  the  work  of  omnipotence.  No 
one  is  hardy  enough  to  attempt  to  explain  how  the  efficiency  of 
God  operates  in  creation  ;  or  how  the  mere  volition  of  Christ  healed 
the  sick  or  raised  the  dead.  Neither  would  men  attemj)!  to  explain 
how  Christ  raises  the  spiritually  dead,  did  they  believe  that  it  was 
a  simple  work  of  almighty  power. 

2.  Another  equally  obvious  corollary  of  the  above  proposition  is, 
that  there  is  a  specific  difference  between  not  only  the  providential 
efficiency  of  God  and  efficacious  grace,  but  also  between  the  latter 
and  what  is  called  common,  or  sufficient  grace.  It  is  not  a  differ- 
ence in  degree,  or  in  circumstances,  or  in  congruity,  but  the  oper- 
ations are  of  an  entirely  different  kind.  There  is  no  analogy  be- 
tween an  influence  securing  or  promoting  mental  development,  or 
the  formation  of  moral  character,  and  the  efficiency  exerted  in 
raisincr  the  dead. 


684  PART  III.     Ch.   XIV.  —  vocation. 

Not  Moral  Suasion. 

3.  It  is  no  less  clear  that  efficacious  grace  is  not  of  the  nature  of 
"moral  suasion."  By  moral  suasion  is  meant  the  influence  exerted 
by  one  mind  over  the  acts  and  states  of  another  mind,  by  the  pres- 
entation of  truth  and  motives,  by  expostulations,  entreaty,  appeals, 
etc.  Under  the  influence  of  this  kind  of  moral  power,  the  mind 
yields  or  refuses.  Its  decision  is  purely  its  own,  and  within  its  own 
power.  There  is  nothing  of  all  this  in  the  exercise  of  omnipotence. 
Healing  the  sick  by  a  word,  is  an  essentially  different  process  from 
healing  him  by  medicine.  A  living  man  may  be  persuaded  not  to 
commit  suicide  ;  but  a  dead  man  cannot  be  persuaded  into  life. 
If  regeneration  be  effected  by  the  volition,  the  command,  the  al- 
mighty power  of  God,  it  certainly  is  not  produced  by  a  process  of 
argument  or  persuasion. 

Efficacious  Grace  Acts  Immediately. 

4.  It  is  a  no  less  obvious  conclusion  that  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit  acts  immediately  on  the  souK  All  effects  in  the  ordinary 
dealings  of  God  with  his  creatures  are  produced  through  the 
agency  of  second  causes.  It  is  only  in  miracles  and  in  the  work 
of  regeneration  that  all  second  causes  are  excluded.  When  Christ 
said  to  the  leper,  "  I  will ;  be  thou  clean,"  nothing  intervened  be- 
tween his  volition  and  the  effect.  And  when  He  put  clay  on  the 
eyes  of  the  blind  man,  and  bade  him  wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam, 
there  was  nothing  in  the  properties  of  the  clay  or  of  the  water 
that  cooperated  in  the  restoration  of  his  sight.  In  like  manner 
nothing  intervenes  between  the  volition  of  the  Spirit  and  the  re- 
generation of  the  soul.  Truth  may  accompany  or  attend  the  woi'k 
of  the  Spirit,  but  it  has  no  cooperation  in  the  production  of  the 
effect.  It  may  attend  it,  as  the  application  of  the  clay  attended 
the  miracle  of  restoring  sight  to  the  blind  man  ;  or  as  Naaman's 
bathing  in  the  Jordan  attended  the  healing  of  his  leprosy.  It  is 
however  to  be  remembered  that  the  word  regeneration  (or  its 
equivalents)  is  used,  sometimes  in  a  limited,  and  sometimes  in  a 
comprehensive  sense.  The  translation  of  a  soul  from  the  kingdom 
of  darkness  into  the  kingdom  of  God's  dear  Son,  is  a  z^eat  event. 
It  involves  a  varied  and  comprehensive  experience.  There  is 
much  that  usually  precedes  and  attends  the  work  of  regeneration 
in  the  limited  sense  of  the  word  ;  and  there  is  much  that  of  ne- 
cessity and  (in  the  case  of  adults)  immediately  succeeds  it.  In  all 
that  thus  precedes  and  follows,  the  truth  has  an  important,  in  some 


§4.]  EFFICACIOUS  GRACE.  685 

aspects,  an  essential  part  in  the  work.  In  most  cases  conviction  of 
the  truth,  and  of  sin,  a  sense  of  shame,  of  remorse,  of  sorrow, 
and  of  anxiety,  and  longing  desires  after  peace  and  security,  pre- 
cede the  work  of  regeneration ;  and  faith,  joy,  love,  hope,  grati- 
tude, zeal,  and  other  exercises  follow  it,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree. 
In  all  these  states  and  acts,  in  everything,  in  short,  which  falls 
within  the  sphere  of  consciousness,  the  truth  acts  an  essential 
part.  These  states  and  acts  are  the  effects  of  the  truth  attended 
by  the  power,  or  demonstration  of  the  Spirit.  But  regeneration 
itself,  the  infusion  of  a  new  life  into  the  soul,  is  the  immediate 
work  of  the  Spirit.  There  is  here  no  place  for  the  use  of  means 
any  more  than  in  the  act  of  creation  or  in  working  a  miracle. 
Moses'  smiting  the  rock  attended  the  outflow  of  the  water,  but 
had  not  the  relation  of  a  means  to  an  effect.  So  the  truth  (in  the 
case  of  adults)  attends  the  work  of  regeneration,  but  is  not  the 
means  by  which  it  is  effected.  Much  preceded  and  much  fol- 
lowed the  healing  of  the  man  with  a  withered  arm  ;  but  the  res- 
toration of  vitality  to  the  limb,  being  an  act  of  divine  omnipotence, 
was  effected  without  the  cooperation  of  secondary  causes.  There 
are  two  senses  in  which  it  may  be  said  that  we  are  begotten  by 
the  truth.  First,  when  the  word  to  beget  (or  regeneration),  is 
meant  to  include  the  whole  process,  not  the  mere  act  of  imparting 
life,  but  all  that  is  preliminary  and  consequent  to  that  act.  The 
word  "  to  beget "  seems  to  be  used  sometimes  in  Scripture,  and 
very  often  in  the  writings  of  theologians  in  this  wide  sense.  And 
secondly,  when  the  word  by  expresses  not  a  cooperating  cause,  or 
means,  but  simply  an  attending  circumstance.  Men  see  by  the 
light.  Without  light  vision  is  impossible.  Yet  the  eyes  of  the 
blind  are  not  opened  by  means  of  the  light.  In  like  manner  all 
the  states  and  acts  of  consciousness  preceding  or  attending,  or 
following  regeneration,  are  by  the  trutli  ;  but  regeneration  itself, 
or  the  imparting  spiritual  life,  is  by  the  immediate  agency  of  the 
Spirit. 

The  Use  of  the  Word  Physical. 

This  idea  is  often  expressed  by  the  word  physical.  The  School- 
men spoke  of  "  a  physical  influence  of  the  Spirit."  The  Pope 
condemned  Jansenius  for  teaching,  "  Gratia  de  se  efficax  vei'e, 
realiter  et  physice  praemovens  et  praedeterminans,  immutabiliter, 
infallibiliter  insuperabiliter,  et  indeclinabiliter  necessaria  est,"  etc. 
Thus  also  Turrettin  says  :  ^  "  Gratise  efficacis  motio,  nee  physica 

1  XV.  iv.  18;  edit.  Edinburgh,  1847,  vol.  ii.  pp.  461,  462. 


686  PART  III.     Cir.   XIV.— VOCATION. 

nee  ethica  proprie  dicenda  est,  sed  supernaturalis  et  divina,  qufe 
utramque  illani  crxf-cn-v  quadantenus  includit.  Non  est  simpliciter 
physica,  quia  agitur  de  facultate  morali,  quae  congruenter  naturae 
sua3  moveri  debet ;  nee  simpliciter  ethica,  quasi  Deus  objective 
solum  ageret,  et  leni  suasione  uteretur,  quod  pertendebant  Pelagi- 
ani.  Sed  supernaturalis  est  et  divina,  quae  transcendit  omnia  hasc 
genera.  Interim  aliquid  de  ethico  et  .phjsico  participat,  quia  et 
potenter  et  suaviter,  grate  et  invicte,  operatur  Spiritus  ad  nostri 
conversionem.  Ad  modum  physicum  pertinet,  quod  Deus  Spiritu 
suo  nos  creat,  regenerat,  cor  carneum  dat,  et  efficienter  habitus  su- 
pernaturales  fidei  et  charitatis  nobis  infundit.  Ad  moralem,  quod 
verbo  docet,  inclinat,  suadet  et  rationibus  variis  tanquam  vinculis 
amoris  ad  se  trahit."  Here  as  was  common  with  the  writers  of 
that  age,  Turrettin  includes  under  "  conversion,"  what  is  now 
more  frequently  distinguished  under  the  two  heads  of  regeneration 
and  conversion.  The  former  including  what  the  Spirit  does  in  the 
soul,  and  the  latter  what  the  sinner,  under  his  influence,  is  in- 
duced to  do.  With  his  usual  clearness  he  refers  Avhat  is  now 
meant  by  regeneration  to  the  physical  operation  of  the  Spirit ;  and 
all  that  belongs  to  conversion  or  the  voluntary  turning  of  the  soul 
to  God,  to  the  mediate  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  through  the 
truth. 

Owen,  in  his  work  on  the  Spirit,  strenuously  insists  on  the 
necessity  of  this  physical  operation.  He  uses  the  words  conver- 
sion and  regeneration  interchangeably,  as  including  all  that  Tur- 
rettin understands  by  them.  And  hence  he  says  that  in  the  work 
of  conversion  there  is  both  a  physical  and  moral  influence  exerted 
by  the  Spirit.  Speaking  of  moral  suasion,  he  says,  "  That  the 
Holy  Spirit  doth  make  use  of  it  in  the  regeneration  or  conversion 
of  all  that  are  adult,  and  that  either  immediately  in  and  by  the 
preaching  of  it,  or  by  some  other  application  of  light  and  truth 
unto  the  mind  derived  from  the  Word  ;  for  by  the  reasons,  mo- 
tives, and  persuasive  arguments  which  the  Word  affords,  are  our 
minds  affected,  and  our  souls  wrought  upon  in  our  conversion  unto 
God,  whence  it  becomes  our  reasonable  obedience.  And  there  are 
none  ordinarily  converted,  but  they  are  able  to  give  some  account 
by  what  considerations  they  were  prevailed  on  thereunto.  But, 
we  say  that  the  whole  work,  or  the  whole  of  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  our  conversion,  doth  not  consist  herein  ;  but  there 
is  a  real,  physical  work,  whereby  He  infuseth  a  gracious  principle 
of  spiritual  life  into  all  that  are  effectually  converted,  and  really 
regenerated,  and  without  which  there  is  no  deliverance  fz'om  the 


§4.]  EFFICACIOUS   GRACE.  687 

state  of  sin  and  death  which  we  have  described ;  which  among 
others  may  be  proved  by  the  ensuing  arguments.  The  principal 
arguments  in  this  case  will  ensue  in  our  proofs  from  the  Scriptures, 
that  there  is  a  real,  physical  work  of  the  Spirit  on  the  souls  of 
men  in  their  regeneration.  That  all  He  doth,  consisteth  not  in 
this  moral  suasion,  the  ensuing  reasons  do  sufficiently  evince."  ^ 

It  is  too  obvious  to  need  remark  that  the  word  physical  Is 
used  antithetically  to  moral.  Any  influence  of  the  Spirit  that  is 
not  simply  moral  by  the  way  of  argument  and  persuasion,  is  called 
physical.  The  word,  perhaps,  is  as  appropriate  as  any  other;  if 
there  be  a  necessity  for  any  discriminating  epithet  In  the  case. 
All  that  is  important  is,  on  the  one  hand,  the  negation  that  the 
work  of  regeneration  is  effected  by  the  moral  power  of  the  truth 
in  the  hands  of  the  Spirit ;  and,  upon  the  other,  the  affirmation 
that  there  is  a  direct  exercise  of  almighty  power  in  giving  a  new 
principle  of  life  to  the  soul. 

This  doctrine  both  in  what  it  denies  and  In  Avhat  it  affirms,  is 
not  peculiar  to  the  older  theologians.  The  modern  German  divines, 
each  in  the  language  of  his  peculiar  philosophy,  recognize  that 
apart  from  the  change  in  the  state  of  the  soul  which  takes  place 
In  the  sphere  of  consciousness,  and  which  is  produced  by  God 
through  the  truth,  there  Is  a  communication  by  his  direct  efficiency 
of  a  new  form  of  life.  This  is  sometimes  called  the  life  of  Christ ; 
sometimes  the  person  of  Christ;  sometimes  his  substance;  some- 
times his  divine-human  nature,  etc.  They  teach  that  man  Is 
passive  in  regeneration,  but  active  in  repentance.^  "  Man  is  every 
moment  unspeakably  more  than  lies  In  consciousness,"  says  Eb- 
rard.^  Tills  Is  true,  and  it  should  teach  us  that  there  is  much  per- 
taining to  our  Internal  life,  which  it  Is  impossible  for  us  to  analyze 
and  explain. 

Efficacious  Grace  Irresistible. 

5.  It  will  of  course  be  admitted  that,  if  efficacious  grace  Is  the 
exercise  of  almighty  power  it  is  irresistible.  That  common  grace, 
or  that  influence  of  the  Spirit  which  Is  granted  more  or  less  to  all 
men  is  often  effectually  resisted,  is  of  course  admitted.  That  the 
true  believer  often  grieves  and  quenches  the  Holy  Spirit,  Is  also 
no  doubt  true.  And  in  short  that  all  those  influences  which  are 
In    their   nature   moral,  exerted  through  the  truth,  are  capable  of 

1  ni'tujuaToAoyta,  Or  a  Discourse  amcerning  the  JJoly  Spirit,  book  ill.  v.  18, 19,  edit.  London, 
1674,  p.  2fil. 

2  See  Ebrard,  Doc/mntik,  iii.  i.  2,  §  447;  edit.  Konigsberg,  1852,  vol.  ii.  p.  328. 
8  Ibid.  §  444,  vol.  ii.  p.  319. 


688  PART  m.    Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

being  opposed,  is  also  beyond  dispute.  But  if  the  special  work  of 
regeneration,  in  the  narrow  sense  of  that  word,  be  the  effect  of 
almighty  power,  then  it  cannot  be  resisted,  any  more  than  the  act 
of  creation.  The  effect  follows  immediately  on  the  will  of  God, 
as  when  He  said  let  there  be  light,  and  light  was. 

The  Soul  passive  in  Regeneration. 

6.  It  follows,  further,  from  the  same  premises,  that  the  soul  is 
passive  in  regeneration.  It  is  the  subject,  and  not  the  agent  of 
the  change.  The  soul  cooperates,  or,  is  active  in  what  precedes 
and  in  what  follows  the  chano;e,  but  the  change  itself  is  somethino: 
experienced,  and  not  something  done.  The  blind  and  the  lame 
who  came  to  Christ,  may  have  undergone  much  labour  in  getting 
into  his  presence,  and  they  joyfully  exerted  the  new  power  im- 
parted to  them,  but  they  were  entirely  passive  in  the  moment  of 
healing.  They  in  no  way  cooperated  in  the  production  of  that 
effect.  The  same  must  be  true  in  regeneration,  if  regeneration 
be  the  effect  of  almighty  power  as  much  as  the  opening  the  eyes 
of  the  blind  or  the  unstopping  by  a  word  the  ears  of  the  deaf. 

Regeneration  Instantaneous. 

7.  Regeneration,  according  to  this  view  of  the  case,  must  be 
instantaneous.  There  is  no  middle  state  between  life  and  death. 
If  regeneration  be  a  making  alive  those  before  dead,  then  it  must 
be  as  instantaneous  as  the  quickening  of  Lazarus.  Those  who  re- 
gard it  as  a  protracted  process,  either  include  in  it  all  the  states 
and  exercises  which  attend  upon  conversion  ;  or  they  adopt  the 
theory  that  regeneration  is  the  result  of  moral  suasion.  If  the 
work  of  omnipotence,  an  effect  of  a  mere  Abolition  on  the  part  of 
God,  it  is  of  necessity  instantaneous.  God  bids  the  sinner  live  ; 
and  he  is  alive,  instinct  with  a  new  and  a  divine  life. 

An  Act  of  Sovereign   G-race. 

8.  It  follows,  also,  that  regeneration  is  an  act  of  sovereign  grace. 
If  a  tree  must  be  made  good  before  the  fruit  is  good ;  the  good- 
ness of  the  fruit  cannot  be  the  reason  which  determines  him  who 
has  the  power  to  change  the  tree  from  bad  to  good.  So  if  works 
spiritually  good  are  the  fruits  of  regeneration,  then  they  cannot  be 
the  ground  on  which  God  exerts  his  life-giving  power.  If,  there- 
fore, the  Scriptures  teach  the  doctrine  of  efficacious  grace  in  the 
Augustinian  sense  of  those  terms,  then  they  teach  that  regenera- 
tion is  a  sovereign  gift.     It  cannot  be  granted  on  the  sight  or  fore- 


§5.]       PROOF   OF   DOCTRINE   OF   EFFICACIOUS   GRACE.      689 

sight  of  anything  good  in  the  subjects  of  this  saving  change.  None 
of  those  whom  Christ  healed,  pretended  to  seek  the  exercise  of  his 
ahnighty  power  in  their  behalf  on  the  ground  of  their  peculiar 
goodness,  much  less  did  they  dream  of  referring  the  restoration  of 
their  sight  or  health  to  any  cooperation  of  their  own  with  his  om- 
nipotence. 

§  5.  Proof  of  the  Doctrine. 
Common  Consent. 

1.  The  first  argument  in  proof  of  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of 
efficacious  grace,  is  drawn  from  common  consent.  All  the  great 
truths  of  the  Bible  are  impressed  on  the  convictions  of  the  people 
of  God  ;  and  find  expression  in  unmistakable  language.  This  is 
done  in  despite  of  the  theologians,  who  often  ignore  or  reject  these 
truths  in  their  formal  teachings.  There  are  in  fact  but  two  views 
on  this  subject.  According  to  the  one,  regeneration  is  the  effect 
of  the  mighty  power  of  God  ;  according  to  the  other,  it  is  the  re- 
sult of  moral  suasion.  This  latter  may  be  understood  to  be  noth- 
ing more  than  what  the  moral  trutlis  of  the  Bible  are  in  virtue  of 
their  nature  adapted  to  produce  on  the  minds  of  men.  Or,  it  mav 
characterize  the  nature  of  the  Spirit's  influence  as  analogous  to 
that  by  which  one  man  convinces  or  persuades  another.  It  is  from 
its  nature  one  which  may  be  effectually  resisted.  All  those,  there- 
fore, who  hold  to  this  theory  of  moral  suasion,  in  either  of  its 
forms,  teach  that  this  influence  is  effectual  or  not,  according  to  the 
determination  of  the  subject.  One  chooses  to  yield,  and  another 
chooses  to  refuse.  Every  man  may  do  either.  Now,  infants  are 
confessedly  incapable  of  moral  suasion.  Infants,  therefore,  cannot 
be  the  subjects  of  regeneration,  if  regeneration  be  effected  by  a 
process  of  rational  persuasion  and  conviction.  But,  according  to 
the  faith  of  the  Church  Universal,  infants  may  be  renewed  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  must  be  thus  born  of  the  Spirit,  in  order  to  enter 
the  kingdom  of  God.  It  therefore  follows  that  the  faith,  the  in- 
wrought conviction  of  the  Church,  the  aggregate  body  of  God's 
true  and  professing  people,  is  against  the  doctrine  of  moral  suasion, 
and  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  that  regeneration  is  effected  by  the 
immediate  almighty  power  of  the  Spirit.  There  is  no  possibility  of 
its  operating,  in  the  case  of  infants,  mediately  through  the  truth  as 
apprehended  by  the  reason.  It  is  hard  to  see  how  this  argument 
is  to  be  evaded.  Those  who  are  consistent  and  sufficiently  inde- 
pendent, admit  its  force,  and  rather  than  give  up  their  theory,  deny 
the  possibility  of  infant  regeneration.    But  even  this  does  not  much 

VOL.  II.  44 


690  PART  III.     Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

help  the  matter.  A  place  outside  of  the  faith  of  the  universal 
Church  IS  a  very  unpleasant  position.  It  is,  moreover,  unsafe  and 
untenable.  The  whole  Church,  led  and  taught  by  the  Spirit  of 
Truth,  cannot  be  wrong,  and  the  metaphysicians  and  theorists  alone 
right.  The  error  of  the  Papists  as  to  the  authority  of  the  Church 
as  a  teacher,  was  twofold  :  first,  in  rendering  it  paramount  to  the 
Scriptures  ;  and  secondly,  in  understanding  by  the  Church,  not  the 
body  of  Christ  filled  by  his  Spirit,  but  the  mass  of  unconverted 
Avicked  men  gathered  with  the  true  people  of  God  within  the  pale 
of  an  external  organization.  With  them  the  Church  consists  of 
that  external  commonwealth  of  which  the  Pope  is  the  head,  and  to 
which  all  belong  who  acknowledge  his  authority.  It  is  a  matter 
of  very  small  moment  what  such  a  body  may  believe.  But  if  we 
understand  by  the  Church  the  aggregate  of  the  true  children  of 
God,  men  renewed,  guided,  and  taught  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  then 
what  they  agree  in  believing,  must  be  true.  This  universality  of 
belief  is  a  fact  which  admits  of  no  rational  solution,  except  that 
the  doctrine  thus  believed  is  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  taught 
by  the  Spirit.  This  argument  is  analogous  to  that  for  the 
being  of  God  founded  upon  the  general  belief  of  the  existence  of 
a  Supreme  Being  among  all  nations.  It  is  a  philosopliical  maxim 
that  "  What  all  men  believe  must  be  true."  This  principle  does 
not  apply  to  the  facts  of  history  or  science,  the  evidence  of  which 
is  present  only  to  the  minds  of  the  few.  But  it  does  apply  to  all 
facts,  the  evidence  of  which  is  contained  either  in  the  constitution 
of  our  nature  or  in  a  common  extei'nal  revelation.  If  what  all 
men  believe  must  be  accepted  as  a  truth  i^evealed  in  the  constitu- 
tion of  human  nature,  what  all  Christians  believe  must  be  ac- 
cepted as  a  truth  taught  by  the  Word  and  the  Spirit  of  God.  The 
fact  that  there  are  many  theoretical,  speculative,  or  practical  athe- 
ists in  the  world,  neither  invalidates  nor  M-eakens  the  argument  for 
the  being  of  God,  founded  upon  the  general  convictions  of  men  ; 
so  neither  does  the  fact  that  theorists  and  speculative  theologians 
deny  the  possibility  of  infant  regeneration  either  invalidate  or 
weaken  the  argument  for  its  truth,  founded  on  the  faith  of  the 
Church  Universal.  But  if  infants  may  be  subjects  of  regenera- 
tion, then  the  influence  by  wliich  regeneration  is  effected  is  not  a 
moral  suasion,  but  the  simple  volition  of  Him  whose  will  is  omnip- 
otent. 

Argument  from  Analogy. 
2.  A  second  argument,  although  most  weighty,  is  nevertheless 
very  difficult  adequately  to  present.     Happily  its  force  does  not 


§  5.]        PROOF   OF   DOCTRINE   OF   EFFICACIOUS  GRACE.       691 

depend  on  the  clearness  or  fulness  of  its  presentation.  Every  mind 
will  apprehend  it  for  itself.  It  is  founded  on  that  analogy  between 
the  external  and  spiritual  world,  between  matter  and  mind,  which 
pervades  all  our  forms  of  thought  and  language,  and  Avhich  is  as- 
sumed and  sanctioned  in  the  Word  of  God.  We  borrow  from  the 
outward  and  visible  world  all  the  terms  by  which  we  express  our 
mental  acts  and  states.  We  attribute  sight,  hearing,  taste,  and  feel- 
ing to  the  mind.  We  speak  of  the  understanding  as  dark,  the  heart 
as  hard,  the  conscience  as  seared.  Strength,  activity,  and  clearness, 
are  as  truly  attributes  of  the  mind,  as  of  material  substances  and 
agencies.  Dulness  and  acuteness  of  intellect  are  as  intelligible 
forms  of  speech,  as  when  these  characteristics  are  predicated  of  a 
tool.  Sin  is  a  leprosy.  It  is  a  defilement,  a  pollution,  something  to 
be  cleansed.  The  soul  is  dead.  It  needs  to  be  quickened,  to  be 
renewed,  to  be  cleansed,  to  be  strengthened,  to  be  guided.  The 
eyes  of  the  mind  must  be  opened,  and  its  ears  unstopped.  It  would 
be  impossible  that  there  should  be  such  a  transfer  of  modes  of  ex- 
pression from  the  spliere  of  the  outward  and  material  to  that  of 
the  inward  and  spiritual,  if  there  were  not  a  real  analogy  and  in- 
timate relation  between  the  two.  A  feeble  or  diseased  mind  is 
scarcely  more  a  figurative  mode  of  speech  than  a  feeble  or  dis- 
eased body.  The  one  may  be  strengthened  or  healed  as  well  as 
the  other.  The  soul  may  be  purified  as  literally  as  the  body. 
Birth  and  the  new-birth,  are  equally  intelligible  and  literal  forms 
of  expression.  The  soul  may  be  quickened  as  really  as  the  body. 
Death  in  the  one  case  is  not  more  a  figure  of  speech  than  it  is  in 
the  other.  When  the  body  dies,  it  is  only  one  form  of  activity 
that  ceases  ;  all  the  active  properties  belonging  to  it  as  matter  re- 
main. When  the  soul  is  dead,  it  also  is  entirely  destitute  of  one 
form  of  life,  while  intellectual  activity  remains. 

Such  being  the  state  of  the  case  ;  such  being  the  intimate  rela- 
tion and  analogy  between  the  material  and  spiritual,  and  such  being 
the  consequent  law  of  thought  and  language  which  is  universal 
among  men,  and  which  is  recognized  in  Scripture,  we  are  not  at 
liberty  to  explain  the  language  of  the  Bible  when  speaking  of  the 
sinful  state  of  men,  or  of  the  method  of  recovery  from  that  state, 
as  purely  metaphorical,  and  make  it  mean  much  or  little  according 
to  our  good  pleasure.  Spiritual  death  is  as  real  as  corporeal  death. 
The  (lead  body  is  not  more  insensible  and  powerless  in  relation  to 
the  objects  of  sense,  than  the  soul,  when  sj)iritually  dead,  is  to  the 
things  of  the  Spirit.  This  insensibility  and  helplessness  are  [)re- 
cisely  what  the  wr--'  'isad  in  both  cases  is  meant  to  express.     It  is 


692  PART  ni.   Ch.  XIV.  — vocation. 

as  literal  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  It  is  on  the  ground  of 
this  analogy  that  much  of  the  language  descriptive  of  the  moral 
and  spiritual  state  of  man,  used  in  the  Bible,  is  founded.  And 
the  account  given  of  the  mode  of  his  recovery  from  his  estate  of 
sin  has  the  same  foundation.  As  the  blind  could  not  open  their 
own  eyes,  or  the  deaf  unstop  their  own  ears,  or  the  dead  quicken 
themselves  in  their  graves  ;  as  they  could  not  prepare  themselves 
for  restoration,  or  cooperate  in  effecting  it,  so  also  with  the  blind, 
the  deaf,  and  the  dead  in  sin.  The  cure  in  both  cases  must 
be  supernatural.  It  can  be  accomplished  by  nothing  short  of  al- 
mighty power.  One  grand  design  of  Christ's  miracles  of  healing 
was  to  teach  this  very  truth.  They  were  intended  to  teach  the 
sinner  that  his  case  was  beyond  all  creature-help;  that  his  only 
hope  was  in  the  almighty,  and  unmerited  grace  of  Christ,  to  whom 
he  must  come  and  to  whom  he  must  submit.  "  As  many  as 
touched  [Him]  were  made  perfectly  whole."  Their  cure  was  by 
no  medicinal  process.  It  was  not  a  gradual  work.  It  was  not  a 
change  to  be  understood  and  accounted  for  by  the  laws  of  matter 
or  mind.  It  was  due  to  the  simple  volition  of  an  almighty  will. 
As  there  have  been  persons  disposed  to  give  the  rationale  of  these 
cures  ;  to  explain  them  on  the  theory  of  animal  magnetism,  of  oc- 
cult forces,  or  of  the  power  of  the  imagination,  so  there  are  those 
who  prefer  to  explain  the  process  of  regeneration  on  rational  prin- 
ciples, and  to  show  how  it  is  accomplished  by  moral  suasion,  and 
how  it  depends  for  its  success  on  the  cooperation  of  the  subject  of 
the  work.  This  is  not  the  Scriptural  account.  Our  Lord  said  to 
the  leper,  I  will ;  be  thou  clean  ;  as  he  said  to  the  winds.  Be  still. 
There  is  another  view  of  the  subject.  As  the  Bible  recognizes 
and  teaches  this  analogy  between  the  material  and  spiritual  worlds, 
so  it  constantly  assumes  a  like  analogy  between  the  relation  which 
God  sustains  to  the  one  and  the  relation  which  He  sustains  to  the 
other.  He  has  given  to  his  creatures,  the  aggregate  of  whom  con- 
stitutes nature,  their  properties,  attributes,  and  powers.  These  are 
not  inert.  They  act  constantly  and'each  according  to  its  own  laws. 
What  we  regard  as  the  operations  of  nature,  especially  in  the 
external  world,  are  the  effects  of  these  agencies,  that  is,  of  the 
efficiency  of  second  causes,  which  God  has  ordained,  and  which 
act  with  uniformity  and  certainty,  so  that  like  causes  always  pro- 
duce like  effects.  God,  however,  is  everywhere  present  witli  his 
creatures,  not  only  upholding,  but  guiding,  so  that  the  effects 
produced,  in  the  infinite  diversity  of  vegetable  and  animal  forms, 
are  indicative  of   an  everywhere  present  and  everywhere  active 


§5.]      PROOF   OF   DOCTRINE   OF  EFFICACIOUS   GRACE.      69B 

intelligence.  In  the  exercise  of  this  potentia  ordinata  God  acts 
uniformly  according  to  the  laws  which  He  has  ordained.  But 
the  Scriptures  teach  that  God  has  not  limited  Himself  to  this 
ordered  action.  He  is  over,  as  well  as  in  all  things.  He  controls 
the  operations  of  the  laws  of  nature  so  as  to  produce  given  results. 
He  so  directs  the  agencies  that  produce  rain,  that  it  rains  at  one 
time  and  place  and  not  at  others,  as  seems  to  Him  good.  He  so 
controls  the  winds  that  they  sink  navies  in  the  depths  of  the  sea, 
or  waft  the  richly  freighted  vessel  to  its  desired  haven.  This  provi- 
dential control,  everywhere  distinguished  from  his  providential 
efficiency,  ov  potentia  ordinata^  is  universal  and  constant,  extend- 
ing even  to  the  casting  of  the  lot,  the  flight  of  an  arrow,  or  the 
falling  of  a  sparrow.  In  all  this  providential  control,  however, 
God  acts  with  and  through  second  causes.  It  was  not  by  a  mere 
volition  that  He  scattered  the  Spanish  Armada ;  He  made  the 
winds  and  the  waves  his  instruments.  The  Bible,  however,  teaches 
that  He  is  not  confined  to  this  use  of  means  ;  that  He  intervenes 
by  his  immediate  efficiency  producing  effects  by  his  simple  volition 
without  any  intervention  of  second  causes.  In  such  cases  the 
effect  is  to  be  referred  exclusively  to  his  almighty  power.  These 
special  interventions  of  God,  for  what  we  know,  may  be,  and  prob- 
ably are,  innumerable.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  certain  that 
the  Bible  is  full  of  recorded  cases  of  this  kind.  All  his  supernat- 
ural revelations,  all  inspiration  and  prophecy,  all  supernatural  gifts, 
and  all  miracles,  whether  in  the  Old  Testament  or  in  the  New,  be- 
long to  this  class.  There  were  no  second  causes  employed  in  reveal- 
ing the  future  to  the  mind  of  the  ancient  seer,  or  in  healing  the  sick, 
or  in  opening  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  or  in  raising  the  dead  by  a  word. 
In  strict  analogy  to  this  relation  of  God  to  the  external  world, 
is,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  his  relation  to  his  rational  and  moral 
creatures.  They  have  their  essential  attributes  and  faculties. 
Those  faculties  act  according  to  established  laws  ;  for  there  are 
laws  of  mind  as  well  as  laws  of  matter,  and  the  one  are  as  uniform 
and  as  imperative  as  the  otiier.  Mental  action,  not  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  of  mind,  is  insanity.  God  is  in  all  his  rational  creat- 
ures, sustaining  them  and  all  their  faculties.  He  is,  moreover, 
over  them  and  out  of  them,  controlling  and  guiding  them  at  his 
pleasure,  in  perfect  consistency  with  their  free  agency.  He  re- 
strains the  wrath  of  men.  He  puts  it  into  the  hearts  of  the  wicked 
to  be  favourable  to  his  people.  He  conducts  all  the  progress  of 
history,  overruling  the  minds  of  men,  with  unerring  certaintv  and 
infinite  wisdom.      All  this  is  mediate  government ;  a  rule  exercised 


694  PART  m.   Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

not  only  according  to  tlie  laws  of  human  agency,  but  through  the 
rational  influences  by  which  that  agency  is  determined  in  its  opera- 
tions. In  like  manner  in  his  dealings  with  his  people  by  the 
Spirit,  He  argues,  remonstrates,  reproves,  exhorts,  excites,  com- 
forts, and  strengthens,  through  the  truth.  But  He  is  not  confined 
to  this  mediate  action.  He  operates  when,  where,  and  how  He 
sees  fit,  without  the  intervention  of  any  second  cause.  By  a  word, 
or  a  volition,  raising  the  spiritually  dead,  opening  the  eyes  of  the 
heart,  renewing  the  will,  communicating  what  the  Scriptures  call 
a  new  nature. 

There  are  men  who  deny  the  providential  intervention  of  God 
in  nature  and  in  the  government  of  the  world.  To  them  the  world 
is  a  great  mechanism,  which,  admitting  it  to  have  been  framed  by 
an  intelligent  first  cause,  does  not  need  the  constant  supervision 
and  intervention  of  its  Maker  to  keep  it  in  successful  operation. 
There  are  others  who  acknowledge  the  necessity  of  such  providen- 
tial intervention  for  the  preservation  of  second  causes  in  their 
activity,  but  deny  anything  beyond  this  potentia  ordinata  of  God. 
They  deny  any  special  providence.  Events  in  the  natural  world 
and  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  are  not  determined  by  his  con- 
trol, but  by  natural  causes  and  the  uncontrolled  free  agency  of 
men.  And  there  are  others,  who  admit  not  only  the  general  con- 
cursus  or  cooperation  of  the  first,  with  all  second  causes,  but  also 
the  special  providence  of  God,  and  yet  who  insist  that  He  always 
operates  through  means  ;  He  never  intervenes  by  the  immediate 
exercise  of  his  power  ;  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a  miracle,  in 
the  ordinary  and  proper  sens^  of  that  word.  In  like  manner  in 
reference  to  the  relation  of  God  to  moral  and  rational  creatures, 
there  are  those  who  deny  that  He  is  anything  more  than  their 
creator.  Having  made  them,  He  leaves  them  entirely  to  their  own 
control.  He  neither  positively  upholds  them  in  being  ;  nor  does 
He  control  them  by  an  operation  on  their  minds  by  truth  and  mo- 
tives j)resented  and  urged  by  his  S|)irit.  There  are  others  who 
admit  the  universal  agency  of  God  in  sustaining  rational  creatures, 
and  who  are  willing  to  concede  that  He  operates  on  them  according 
to  the  laws  of  mental  action,  as  one  mind  may  influence  other 
minds  ;  but  they  deny  any  more  than  this.  They  deny  any  mira- 
cles in  the  sphere  of  grace,  any  effects  produced  by  the  immediate 
exertion  of  the  omnipotence  of  God. 

It  is  a  strono;  aro-ument  in  favour  of  the  Ausustinian  doctrine 
of  efficacious  grace,  which  teaches  that  regeneration  is  an  act  of 
almighty  power,  or,  in  its  subjective  sense,  an  effect  produced  in 


§5.]      PROOF   OF   DOCTRINE    OF   EFFICACIOUS    GRACE.      695 

the  soul  by  tlie  omnipotence  of  God,  that  it  is  in  analogy  with  the 
whole  teachino;  of  the  Bible  as  to  the  relation  between  the  outward 
and  spiritual  world,  and  as  to  the  relation  in  which  God  stands  to 
the  one  and  to  the  other.  This  doctrine  assumes  nothing  beyond 
what  is  recognized  as  true  in  every  other  department  of  the  uni- 
verse of  God.  He  is  everywhere  present,  and  everywhere  active, 
governing  all  creatures  and  all  their  actions  in  a  way  suited  to  their 
nature,  working  in,  with,  through,  or  without  second  causes,  or 
instrumental  agency,  as  seems  good  in  his  sight. 

Argument  from  Ephesians  i.  17—19. 

3.  A  third  argument  on  this  subject  is  founded  on  Ephesians  i. 
17—19.  The  truth  involved  in  this  doctrine  was  so  important  in 
the  eyes  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  that  he  earnestly  prayed  that  God 
would  enable  the  Ephesians  by  his  Spirit  to  understand  and  believe 
it.  It  was  a  truth  which  the  illumination  and  teaching  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  alone  could  enable  them  duly  to  appreciate.  Paul  prayed 
that  their  eyes  might  be  enlightened  not  only  to  know  the  blessed- 
ness of  being  the  subjects  of  God's  vocation,  and  the  glory  of  the 
inheritance  in  reserve  for  them,  but  also  "  the  exceeding  greatness 
of  his  power  to  us-ward  who  believe,  according  to  the  working  of 
his  mighty  power  which  He  wrought  in  Clirist,  when  He  raised 
him  from  the  dead."  There  are  two  questions  to  be  decided  in 
the  interpretation  of  this  passage.  First,  does  the  Apostle  speak 
of  the  present  or  of  the  future  ?  Does  he  refer  to  what  the  be- 
liever experiences  in  this  life,  or  to  what  he  is  to  experience  at  the 
last  day  ?  In  other  words,  does-  the  passage  refer  to  the  spiritual 
resurrection  from  a  state  of  death  in  sin,  or  to  the  resurrection  of 
the  body  and  the  glory  that  is  to  follow  ?  The  great  majority  of 
commentators,  Greek  as  well  as  Latin,  Protestant  as  well  as  Cath- 
olic, ancient  as  well  as  modern,  understand  the  passage  to  refer  to 
the  conversion  or  regeneration  of  believers.  This  general  consent 
is  primd  facie  evidence  of  the  correctness  of  this  interpretation. 
Besides,  the  whole  context,  preceding  and  subsequent,  shows  that 
such  is  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle.  In  what  precedes,  the  prayer 
refers  to  the  present  experience  of  the  believer.  Paul  prayed  that 
the  Ephesians  might  be  made  to  know  the  value  of  the  vocation 
they  had  already  received  ;  the  preciousness  of  the  hope  they  then 
enjoyed,  and  the  greatness  of  the  power  of  which  they  had  ah-ead}'- 
been  the  subjects.  Here  a  reference  to  the  future  would  be  out 
of  place.  Besides,  in  what  follows,  the  Apostle  does  not  trace  the 
analogy  between  the  resurrection  of  Christ  and  the  future  resurrec- 


696  PART  III.     Ch.   XIV.  — vocation. 

tion  of  his  people.  He  does  not  say  here  as  he  does  in  Romans 
viii.  11,  "  He  that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead,  shall  also  quicken 
your  mortal  bodies,"  but  He  that  raised  Christ  from  the  dead,  has 
quickened  you  "  who  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins."  It  is 
clear,  therefore,  that  it  is  the  analogy  between  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  from  the  grave,  and  the  spiritual  resurrection  of  believers, 
that  the  Apostle  has  in  view.  And  this  is  an  analogy  to  which  the 
Scripture^  elsewhere  refer,  as  in  Romans  vi.  4.  The  parallel  pas- 
sage in  Colossians  ii.  12,  "  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wiierein 
also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  opei'ation  of  God, 
who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead;"  renders  it  plain  that  it  is  the 
spiritual  resurrection  of  believers  which  the  Apostle  refers  to  the 
mighty  power  of  God,  and  not  the  future  resurrection  of  their 
bodies. 

But  if  this  be,  as  seems  so  clear,  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle, 
what  does  the  passage  teach  ?  What  is  it  that  Paul  desired  that 
the  Ephesians  should  understand,  when  he  says,  that  their  regen- 
eration, or  spiritual  resurrection  was  effected  by  the  mighty  power 
of  God  ?  (1.)  In  the  first  place  it  is  very  clear  that  he  meant 
them  to  understand  that  it  was  not  their  own  work.  They  had 
not  by  their  own  power,  by  the  efficiency  of  their  own  will,  raised 
themselves  fi'om  the  dead.  (2.)  It  is  no  less  clear  that  he  does 
not  mean  to  teach  that  there  was  any  special  difficulty  in  the  case, 
as  it  regards  God.  To  Him  all  tilings  are  easy.  He  speaks  and  it 
is  done.  He  upholds  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power.  It  is 
not  the  difficulty,  but  the  nature  of  the  work,  he  would  have  them 
to  understand.  (3.)  And,  therefore,  the  precise  truth  which  the 
passage  teaches  is  that  regeneration  belongs  to  that  class  of  events 
which  are  brought  about  by  the  immediate  agency,  or  almighty 
power  of  God.  They  are  not  the  effi?ct  of  natural  causes.  They 
are  not  due  to  the  power  of  God  acting  through  second  causes. 
This  is  the  definite  meaning  of  the  words.  There  can  be  no  rea- 
son for  saying  that  the  Ephesians  had  experienced  the  effects  of  the 
mighty  power  of  God,  if  they  Avere  subjects  of  no  other  influence 
than  that  of  moral  suasion,  which  all  more  or  less  experience,  and 
which  all  may  resist.  The  language  would  be  incongruous  to  ex- 
press that  idea.  Besides,  the  very  point  of  the  illustration  would 
then  be  lost.  The  Ephesians  had  been  quickened  by  the  very 
power  which  wrought  in  Christ  when  God  raised  Him  from  the 
dead.  This  was  the  immediate  power  of  God.  It  was  not  exer- 
cised through  second  causes.  It  was  not  a  natural  process  aided 
by  divine  efficiency ;  much  less  was  it  the  result  of  any  form  of 


§5.]       PROOF   OF   DOCTRINE    OF   EFFICACIOUS   GRACE.      697 

moral  suasion.  As  then  Christ  was  raised  by  the  immediate  power 
of  God,  so  are  the  people  of  God  raised  from  spiritual  death  by  the 
same  almighty  power. 

This  was  in  the  view  of  the  Apostle  a  most  important  truth. 
It  determines  the  whole  nature  of  religion.  It  raises  it  from  the 
sphere  of  the  natural,  into  that  of  the  supernatural.  If  regenera- 
tion is  a  change  effected  by  the  man's  own  will;  if  it  be  due  to  the 
mere  force  of  truth  and  motives,  it  is  a  small  affair.  Biit  if  it  be 
the  effect  of  the  mighty  power  of  God,  it  is  as  to  its  nature  and 
consequences  supernatural  and  divine.  The  whole  nature  of  Chris- 
tianity turns  on  this  point.  The  conflict  of  ages  concerns  the  ques- 
tion, Whether  our  religion  is  natural  or  supernatural;  whether  the 
regeneration,  sanctification,  and  salvation  promised  and  effected 
under  the  gospel,  are  natural  effects,  produced  by  second  causes, 
aided  and  guided,  it  may  be,  by  the  cooperation  of  God,  as  He  aids 
and  guides  the  forces  of  nature  in  the  production  of  their  wonder- 
ful effects ;  or  whether  they  are  something  entirely  above  nature, 
due  to  the  supernatural  intervention  and  constant  operation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Which  of  these  views  is  Scriptural,  can  hardly  be  a 
question  among  unsophisticated  Christians.  And  if  the  latter  be 
the  true  view,  it  goes  far  to  decide  the  question.  Whether  regen- 
eration be  due  to  moral  suasion,  or  to  the  almighty  power  of  the 
Spirit. 

Argument  from  the  G-eneral  Teaching  of  Scripture. 

4.  This  introduces  the  fourth  argument  on  this  subject.  It  is 
drawn  from  the  general  account  given  in  the  Scriptures  of  subject- 
ive Christianity,  or  the  nature  of  the  divine  life  in  the  soul.  It  is 
the  tendency  of  all  anti-Augustinian  systems,  as  just  remarked,  to 
represent  all  inward  religion  as  a  rational  affair,  that  is,  something 
to  be  accounted  for  and  explained  on  rational  principles;  the  result 
of  moral  culture,  of  the  right  exercise  of  our  free  agency,  and  the 
favourable  influence  of  circumstances.  Such  is  not  the  view  mven 
in  the  Bible.  When' our  Lord  said,  "I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the 
branches  :  he  that  abideth  in  me,  and  I  in  him,  the  same  bringeth 
forth  much  fruit :  for  without  me  ye  can  do  nothing  "  (John  xv. 
5),  He  certainly  meant  that  the  vital  union  between  Him  and 
his  people  is  something  more  than  that  which  may  subsist  between 
disciples  and  their  master, —  a  union  including  merely  trust,  con- 
geniality, and  affection.  The  influence  to  which  the  fruitfulness  of 
the  believer  is  attributed  is  something  more  than  the  Influence  of 
the  truth  wiiich  He  taught  ;  however  that  truth  may  be  applied  or 
enforced.     Their  abiding  in  Him,  and  He  in  them,  is  something 


698  PART  III.     Cu.   XIV.  —  VOCATION. 

more  than  abiding  in  the  profession  and  belief  of  the  truth.  Christ 
is  the  head  of  the  Church  not  merely  as  its  ruler,  but  as  the  source 
of  its  life.  It  is  not  I,  says  the  Apostle,  that  live,  "  but  Christ 
liveth  in  nie."  (Gal.  ii.  20.)  "  Know  ye  not  your  own  selves, 
how  that  Jesus  Christ  is  in  you,  except  ye  be  reprobates  ?  "  (2 
Cor.  xiii.  5.)  It  is  from  Him,  as  tlie  same  Apostle  teaches  us,  that 
the  whole  body  derives  those  supplies  by  whicli  it  lives  and  grows. 
(Eph.  iv.  16.)  "  Because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also."  (John  xiv. 
19.)  "  I  am  the  resurrection,  and  the  life."  (John  xi.  25.)  "  I 
am  that  bread  of  life."  (John  vi.  48.)  "  He  that  eateth  my  flesh, 
and  drinketh  my  blood,  dwelleth  in  me  and  I  in  him."  (John  vi. 
56.)  "  This  is  that  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven :  .  .  .  . 
he  that  eateth  of  this  bread  shall  live  forever."  (John  vi.  58.) 
"We  shall  be  saved  by  his  life."  (Rom.  v.  10.)  "  The  first  man 
Adam  was  made  a  living  soul,  the  last  Adam  was  made  a  quicken- 
ing spirit."  (1  Cor.  xv.  45.)  "  As  the  Father  hath  life  in  him- 
self, so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself."  (John 
Y.  26.)  "Thou  hast  given  him  power  over  all  flesh,  that  he  should 
give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as  thou  hast  given  him."  (John  xvii. 
2.)  "  Your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God.  When  Christ,  who  is 
our  life,  shall  appear,  then  shall  ye  also  appear  with  him  in  glory." 
(Col.  iii.  3,  4.) 

The  Scriptures,  therefore,  plainly  teach  that  there  is  a  vital  union 
between  Christ  and  his  people  ;  that  they  have  a  common  life 
analogous  to  that  which  exists  between  the  vine  and  its  branches, 
and  between  the  head  and  members  of  the  body.  The  believer  is 
truly  partaker  of  the  life  of  Christ.  This  great  truth  is  presented 
under  another  aspect.  The  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
are  one  God.  Wherever,  therefore,  the  Father  is,  there  is  the  Son, 
and  where  the  Son  is,  there  is  the  Spirit.  Hence  if  Christ  dwells 
in  the  believer,  the  Father  does  and  the  Spirit  also  does.  In  answer 
to  the  question  of  the  disciples,  "  Lord,  how  is  it  that  thou  wilt 
manifest  thyself  unto  us,  and  not  unto  the  world  ?  "  our  Lord  an- 
swered, "  If  a  man  love  me,  he  will  keep  my  words :  and  my  Father 
will  love  him,  and  we  will  come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode  with 
him."  (John  xiv.  22,  23.)  In  the  Bible,  therefore,  it  is  said  that 
God  dwells  in  his  people  ;  that  Christ  dwells  in  them,  and  that  the 
Spirit  dwells  in  them.  Tliese  foi-ms  of  expression  are  intei'changed, 
as  they  all  mean  the  same  thing.  Thus  in  Romans  viii.  9—11,  "Ye 
are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of 
God  dwell  in  you.  Now  if  any  man  have  not  tlie  Spirit  of  Christ 
he  is  none  of  his."     Here  the  same  person  is  called  the  Spirit  of 


§5.]       PROOF   OF   DOCTRINE   OF   EFFICACIOUS   GRACE.      699 

God  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  But  in  the  next  verse  it  is  said, 
"  If  Christ  be  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin  ;  "  and  tlien 
in  verse  11,  "  But  if  the  Spirit  of  liini  that  raised  up  Jesus  from  the 
dead  dwell  in  yon,  he  that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  shall 
also  quicken  your  mortal  bodies  by  his  Spiiit  that  dwelleth  in  you." 
It  is  thus  plain  that  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  is  the  indwelling 
of  Christ.  And  tlierefore  those  numerous  passages  in  whicli  the 
Spirit  of  God  is  said  to  dwell  in  his  people,  are  so  many  proofs  of 
the  mystical  union  between  Christ  and  all  true  believers.  They 
are  one.  One  with  Him  and  one  with  one  another.  For  by  one 
Spirit  they  are  all  baptized  into  one  body.      (1  Cor.  xii.  13.) 

These  representations  of  Scripture  concerning  the  union  be- 
tween Christ  and  his  people,  are  neither  to  be  explained  nor  ex- 
plained away.  Both  attempts  have  often  been  made.  Numerous 
theories  have  been  adopted  and  urged  as  divine  truth,  which  in 
fact  are  only  philosophical  speculations.  Some  say  that  it  is  "the 
substance  of  Christ's  person  "  that  dwells  in  the  believer.  Others 
say  that  it  is  his  divine  nature,  the  Logos,  who  becomes  incarnate 
in  the  Church  ;  others  that  it  is  the  humanity  of  Christ,  his  soul 
and  body  ;  others  that  it  is  the  theanthropic  nature  ;  others  that  it  is 
generic  humanity  raised  by  its  union  with  the  divine  nature  to  the 
power  of  divinity.  All  this  is  darkening  counsel  by  words  without 
wisdom.  It  is,  however,  far  better  than  the  opposite  extreme, 
which  explains  everything  away.  The  one  metliod  admits  the  vital 
fact,  however  unauthorized  may  be  the  explanations  given  of  it. 
The  other  denies  the  fact,  and  substitutes  something  easily  intel- 
ligible for  the  great  Scriptural  mystery.  It  is  enough  for  us  to 
know  that  Christ  and  his  people  are  really  one.  They  are  as  truly 
one  as  the  head  and  members  of  the  same  body,  and  for  the  same 
reason  ;  they  are  pervaded  and  animated  by  the  same  Spirit.  It 
is  not  merely  a  union  of  sentiment,  of  feeling,  and  of  interests. 
These  are  only  the  consequences  of  the  vital  union  on  which  the 
Scriptures  lay  so  nmch  stress. 

Now  if  the  whole  nature  of  religion,  of  the  life  of  God  in  the 
soul,  is,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  thus  something  supernatural 
and  divine  ;  something  mysterious  ;  something  which  is  not  to  be 
explained  by  the  ordinary  laws  of  mental  action  or  moral  cultui'e  ; 
then  assuredly  regeneration,  or  the  commencement  of  this  divine 
life  in  the  soul,  is  no  simple  process,  the  rationale  of  which  can  be 
made  intelligible  to  a  child.  It  is  no  unassisted  act  of  the  man 
himself  yielding  to  the  force  of  truth  and  motives ;  nor  is  it  an  act 
to  which  he  is  determined  by  the  persuasion  of  the  Spirit,  giving 


700  PART  m.   Ch.  XIV.— vocation. 

truth  its  clue  influence  on  the  mind.  It  is  an  event  of  a  different 
kind.  It  is  not  thus  natural  but  supernatural ;  not  referrible  to 
any  second  cause,  but  to  the  mighty  power  of  God.  This  does  not 
involve  any  undervaluing  of  the  truth,  nor  any  oversight  of  the 
constant  mediate  influence  of  the  Spirit  on  the  minds  of  all  men, 
and  especially  upon  the  minds  of  the  people  of  God.  We  may 
admit  the  value  and  absolute  necessity  of  light,  while  we  deny 
that  light  can  open  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  or  preserve  the  restored 
organ  in  its  normal  vigour.  The  man  who  contends  for  the  possi- 
bility and  truth  of  miracles,  does  not  make  everything  miraculous. 
He  may  admit  both  the  potentia  ordinata  of  God,  and  his  constant 
providential  control  over  second  causes,  while  he  holds  that  there 
are  occasions  in  which  He  acts  immediately  by  his  power,  without 
the  intervention  of  any  other  agency.  So  Augustinians,  while 
they  hold  to  the  supernatural  character  of  the  inward  life  of  the 
believer,  and  to  the  fact  that  regeneration  is  due  to  the  immediate 
exercise  of  the  almighty  power  of  God,  nevertheless  believe  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  constantly  operates  on  the  minds  of  men,  accord- 
ing to  the  laws  of  mind,  enlightening,  convincing,  persuading,  and 
admonishing.  They  believe  all  that  their  opponents  believe,  but 
they  believe  more. 

Argument  from  the  Nature  of  Regeneration. 

5.  The  Scriptures  not  only  teach  that  regeneration  is  the  work 
of  the  immediate  omnipotent  agency  of  the  Spirit,  but  they  give 
such  an  account  of  its  nature  as  admits  of  no  other  explanation  of 
its  cause.  It  is  a  kind  of  work  which  nothing  but  almighty  power 
can  accomplish.  It  is  a  CwoTrot-^ffts,  a  making  alive.  Originating 
life  is  from  its  nature  an  act  of  God,  for  He  alone  can  give  life.  It 
is  also  an  act  of  immediate  power.  It  precludes  the  intervention 
of  second  causes  as  much  as  creation  does,  Christ  was  raised  from 
the  dead  by  the  power  of  God.  So  was  Lazarus.  So  are  the  re- 
generated. Spiritual  resurrection  is  just  as  really  and  as  literally 
an  act  of  making  alive  as  calling  a  dead  body  to  life.  The  one  oc- 
curs in  the  sphere  of  the  outward,  the  other  in  the  sphere  of  the 
spiritual  world.  But  the  one  is  just  as  real  a  communication  of 
life  as  the  other.  When  the  principle  of  life  is  communicated  to 
a  dead  body,  all  the  chemical  properties  which  belong  to  it  are  con- 
trolled by  the  vital  force,  so  as  to  make  them  work  for  its  preser- 
vation and  increase,  instead  of  for  its  disintegration.  And  when 
the  principle  of  spiritual  life  is  imparted  to  the  soul,  it  controls  all 
its  mental   and  moral  energies,  so  that   they  work  to  its  spiritual 


§5.]      PROOF   OF  DOCTRINE   OF  EFFICACIOUS  GRACE.      701 

nourishment  and  growth  in  grace.  The  Scriptures,  therefore,  in 
teaching  that  regeneration  is  a  quickening,  do  thereby  reveal  to  us 
its  nature  as  a  work  not  of  man,  or  of  moral  suasion,  or  of  divine 
efficiency  operating  through  second  causes,  but  of  the  immediate, 
and  therefore  the  ahnighty  power  of  God. 

The  Bible  teaches  the  same  truth  when  it  declares  believers  to 
be  new  creatures,  and  says  that  they  are  created  anew  in  Christ 
Jesus.  Creation  is  the  work  of  God,  and  it  is  an  immediate  work. 
It  precludes  the  intervention  of  means.  It  is  of  necessity  the 
work  of  almighty  power,  and  therefore  the  Scriptures  so  often 
claim  it  as  the  peculiar  prerogative  of  God.  It  is  true  that  the 
Greek  and  Hebrew  words  which  we  translate  by  the  English 
word  create,  are  often  used  in  the  sense  of  to  make,  to  fashion  out 
of  preexistent  materials.  They  occur,  also,  in  a  secondary  or  fig- 
urative sense,  and  express  in  such  cases  only  the  idea  of  a  greats 
and  generally  a  favourable  change,  no  matter  how  produced.  It 
would  not,  therefore,  be  sufficient  to  establish  the  Augustinian  doc- 
trine of  regeneration,  that  it  is  called  a  creation,  if  in  other  parts 
of  Scripture  it  were  spoken  of  as  a  change  produced  by  second 
causes,  and  if  the  means  and  the  mode  were  deJscribed.  In  that 
case  it  would  be  natural  to  take  the  word  in  a  figurative  sense. 
But  the  contrary  of  all  this  is  true.  If  the  Bible  taught  the  eter- 
nity of  matter,  or  that  the  world  is  an  emanation  from  God,  or  a 
mode  of  God's  existence,  we  should  be  forced  to  give  a  figurative 
sense  to  the  words,  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and 
the  earth."  But  as  the  Scriptures  tell  us  that  God  alone  is  eter- 
nal, and  that  all  else  owes  its  existence  to  his  will,  we  are  author- 
ized and  bound  to  retain  these  words  in  their  simple  and  sublime 
significance.  Now,  as  regeneration  is  always  declared  to  be  God's 
work,  his  peculiar  work,  and  a  work  of  his  mighty  power,  analo- 
gous to  that  whicli  He  wrouglit  in  Christ,  when  He  i\aised  Him 
from  the  dead ;  as  it  is  declared  to  be  a  making  alive,  an  opening 
of  the  eyes,  and  an  unstopping  the  ears  ;  then,  wJien  it  is  also 
called  a  new  creation,  we  are  bound  to  understand  that  term  as 
containing  a  new  assertion  that  it  is  a  work  of  almighty  power. 

Another  common  Scriptural  representation  leads  to  the  same 
conclusion.  Believers  are  the  children  of  God,  not  merelv  as  his 
rational  creatures,  but  as  the  subjects  of  a  new  birth.  They  are 
born  of  God.  They  are  born  of  the  Spirit.  They  are  beo-otten 
of  God.  1  John  v.  1-18.  The  essential  idea  in  such  representa- 
tions, is  that  of  communication  of  life.  We  derive  one  form  of 
life  from  our  corrupt  -earthly  parents,  and  another  from  the  Spirit. 


702  PART  III.     Ch.   XIV. —  vocation. 

"  Tliat  which  is  bom  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh  ;  and  that  which  is  born 
of  the  Spirit,  is  Spirit."  (John  iii.  6.)  In  the  case  of  creatures, 
this  communication  of  life  by  the  parent  to  the  offspring  is  merely 
transmission.  In  the  case  of  God,  the  fountain  of  all  life,  it  is  a 
real  communication.  He  originates  the  life  which  He  gives.  As 
it  is  utterly  incongruous  to  think  of  a  creature's  begetting  itself, 
or  originating  its  own  life  ;  and  no  less  incongruous  to  regard  this 
commencement  of  life  or  being,  as  brought  about  by  secondary  in- 
fluences, so  is  it  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  Scriptures  to  regard 
regeneration  as  a  man's  own  work,  or  as  due  to  his  cooperation,  or 
as  produced  by  the  influences  of  truth.  As  well  might  it  be  assumed 
that  light,  heat,  and  moisture  could  make  a  dead  seed  germinate, 
and  bring  forth  fruit.  All  beginning  of  life  is  directly  from  God  ; 
and  this  is  what  the  Bible  most  explicitly  asserts  to  be  true  of  re- 
generation. Those  who  become  the  children  of  God  are  "  born, 
not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man, 
but  of  God."     (John  i.  13.) 

This  argument  is  not  invalidated  by  the  fact  that  Paul  says  to 
the  Corinthians,  "  I  have  begotten  you  through  the  gospel."  All 
words  are  used  literally  and  figuratively  ;  and  no  man  is  misled 
(or  need  be)  by  this  change  of  meaning.  We  are  accustomed  to 
speak  of  one  man  as  the  spiritual  father  of  another  man,  without 
any  fear  of  being  misunderstood.  When  the  historian  tells  us 
that  the  monk  Augustine  converted  the  Britons,  or  the  American 
missionaries  the  Sandwich  Islanders,  we  are  in  no  danger  of  mis- 
taking his  meaning ;  any  more  than  when  it  is  said  that  Moses  di- 
vided the  Red  Sea,  or  brought  water  out  of  the  rock,  or  gave  the 
people  manna  out  of  heaven.  The  same  Paul  who  told  the  Cor- 
inthians that  he  had  *'  begotten  them  through  the  gospel,"  told 
them  in  another  place,  "  I  have  planted,  Apollos  watered :  but 
God  gave  the  increase.  So  then,  neither  is  he  that  planteth  any- 
thing, neither  he  that  watereth  ;  but  God  that  giveth  the  increase." 
(1  Cor.  iii.  6,  7.) 

In  1  Peter  i.  23,  it  is  written,  "  Being  born  again,  not  of  corrup- 
tible seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  Word  of  God,  which  liveth 
and  abideth  forever."  From  this  passage  it  is  sometimes  inferred 
that  the  new  birth  is  a  change  produced  not  by  the  immediate 
agency  of  God,  but  instrumentally  by  the  Word,  and  therefore  by 
a  rational  process,  or  moral  suasion.  It  has,  however,  been  already 
remarked  that  regeneration  is  often  taken  in  the  wide  sense  of  con- 
version. That  is,  for  the  whole  change  which  takes  place  in  the 
sinner  when  he  is  made  a  child  of  God.     This  is  a  comprehensive 


§5.]       PROOF   OF   DOCTRINE   OF   EFFICACIOUS   GRACE.      703 

change,  including  all  that  takes  place  in  the  consciousness,  and  all 
that  occurs  in  the  soul  itself  (so  to  speak),  below  the  conscious- 
ness, and  subsequently  in  the  state  and  relation  of  the  soul  to  God. 
In  this  change  the  Word  of  God  is  eminently  instrumental.  It  is  by 
the  Word  that  the  sinner  is  convinced,  aroused,  made  to  seek  rec- 
onciliation with  God,  and  enlightened  in  the  way  of  salvation.  It 
is  by  the  Word  that  the  person  and  work  of  Clirist  are  i-evealed, 
and  all  the  objects  on  which  the  activity  of  the  regenerated  soul 
terminates,  are  presented  to  the  mind.  The  Gospel  is,  therefore, 
the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  unto  salvation.  It  is  by  the  Word 
that  all  the  graces  of  the  Spirit  are  called  into  exercise,  and  with- 
out it  holiness,  in  all  its  conscious  manifestations,  would  be  as  im- 
possible as  vision  without  light.  But  this  does  not  prove  that  light 
produces  the  faculty  of  seeing  ;  neither  does  truth  produce  the 
principle  of  spiritual  life.  The  Apostle  Paul,  who  glories  so  much 
in  the  gospel,  who  declares  that  it  is  by  the  foolishness  of  preach- 
ing that  God  saves  those  that  believe,  still  teaches  that  the  inward 
work  of  the  Spirit  is  necessary  to  enable  men  to  receive  the  things 
freely  given  to  them  of  God  ;  that  the  natural  man  receives  not 
the  things  of  the  Spirit,  that  they  must  be  spiritually  discerned. 
(1  Cor.  ii.  8—11.)  As  examples  of  the  latitude  with  which  the 
words  beget,  begotten,  and  new-birth  are  used  in  Scripture,  refer- 
ence need  be  made  only  to  such  passages  as  1  Peter  i.  3,  where  it  is 
said.  He  "  hath  begotten  us  again  unto  a  lively  hope  by  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead  ;  "  and  1  Corinthians  iv.  15. 
There  is  therefore  nothing  in  what  the  Scriptures  teach  of  the 
agency  of  the  truth  in  conversion,  or  regeneration  in  the  wide 
sense  of  the  word,  inconsistent  with  their  distinct  assertion  that  in 
its  narrow  sense  of  quickening  or  imparting  spiritual  life,  it  is  an 
act  of  the  immediate  omnipotence  of  God.  This  point  was  ad- 
verted to  in  a  previous  chapter. 

The  fact  then  that  the  Bible  represents  regeneration  as  a  spii'it- 
ual  resurrection,  as  a  new  creation,  and  as  a  new  birth,  proves  it  to 
be  the  work  of  God's  immediate  agency.  There  is  another  familiar 
mode  of  speaking  on  this  subject  which  leads  to  the  same  conclusion. 
In  Deuteronomy  xxx,  6,  Moses  says:  "The  Lord  thy  God  will 
circumcise  thine  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou  may- 
est  live."  In  Ezekiel  xi.  19,  it  is  said,  "  I  will  give  them  one 
heart,  and  I  will  put  a  new  spirit  within  you  ;  and  I  will  take 
the  stony  heart  out  of  their  flesh,  and  will  give  them  an  heart  of 
flesh."     And  in  cluipter  \xxvi.  26,  "  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give 


704  PART  m.   Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you:  and  I  will  take 
away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  an  heart 
of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  iny  Spirit  within  you,  and  cause  you  to 
walk  in  my  statutes,  and  ye  shall  keep  my  judgments  and  do 
them."  Jeremiah  xxiv.  7,  "  I  will  give  them  an  heart  to  know 
me."  The  Psalmist  prayed,  "  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O 
God  ;  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me."  (Ps.  li.  10.)  It  is 
admitted  that  the  word  heart,  like  all  other  familiar  terms,  is  used 
in  different  senses  in  the  Scriptures.  It  often  means  the  whole 
soul ;  as  when  mention  is  made  of  the  eyes,  the  thoughts,  and  the 
intentions  of  the  heart.  It  very  frequently  means  the  feelings  or 
affections,  or  is  used  collectively  for  them  all,  or  for  the  seat  of  the 
feelings.  A  cold,  hard,  sluggish,  timid,  humble,  broken,  heart  are 
all  common  forms  of  expression  for  what  exists  in  the  conscious- 
ness ;  for  transient  and  changeable  states  of  the  mind,  or  inward 
man.  Notwithstanding  it  is  no  less  clear  that  the  word  is  often 
used  in  the  same  sense  in  which  we  use  the  word  nature,  for  a 
principle  of  action,  a  permanent  habit  or  disposition.  Something 
that  exists  not  in  the  consciousness,  but  <below  it.  That  such  is 
its  meaning  in  the  passages  just  quoted,  and  in  all  others  in  which 
God  is  said  to  change  or  renew  the  heart,  is  plain  :  (1.)  Because 
it  is  something  which  God  not  only  gives,  but  which  He  creates. 
(2.)  Because  it  is  the  source  of  all  right  action.  It  cannot  be  a 
volition,  or  a  generic  purpose,  or  any  state  of  mind  which  the  man 
himself  produces ;  because  it  is  said  to  be  the  source  of  love,  of 
fear,  and  of  new  obedience.  Our  Lord's  illustration,  derived  from 
trees  good  and  bad,  forbids  any  other  interpretation.  A  good  tree 
produces  good  fruit.  The  goodness  of  the  tree  precedes  and  deter- 
mines the  goodness  of  the  fruit ;  and  so  a  good  heart  precedes  all 
just  thoughts,  all  right  purposes,  all  good  feelings  and  all  holy  exer- 
cises of  every  kind.  (3.)  The  Scriptures  explain  what  is  meant  by 
"  creating  a  new  heart  "  by  the  exegetical  expression,  "I  will  put 
my  Spirit  within  you."  This  surely  is  not  a  right  purpose.  The  in- 
dwelling Spirit  or  Christ  dwelling  in  us,  is  the  principle  and  source 
of  that  new  life  of  which  the  believer  is  made  the  subject.  All 
those  passages  in  which  God  promises  to  give  a  new  heart,  are  proofs 
that  regeneration  is  a  supernatural  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  not  a 
moral  suasion,  but  a  ci'eating  and  imparting  a  principle  of  a  new 
form  of  life. 

Argument  from  related  Doctrines. 

6.  Another  decisive  argument  in  favour  of  the  Aujrustinian  doc- 
trine  of  efficacious  grace,  is  derived  from  its  necessary  connection 


§5.]      PROOF   OF   DOCTRINE   OF   EFFICACIOUS   GRACE.       705 

with  other  Scriptural  doctrines.  If  the  latter  be  true,  the  former 
must  be  true  also.  If  the  Bible  teaches  that  men  since  the  Fall 
have  not  lost  all  ability  to  what  is  spiritually  good  ;  that  they  are 
not  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  ;  that  they  still  have  the  power  to 
turn  themselves  unto  God,  or,  at  least,  tlie  power  to  yield  to  the 
influence  which  God  exerts  for  their  conversion,  and  power  to 
resist  and  refuse,  then  so  far  as  this  point  is  concerned  it  miglit  be 
true  that  regeneration  is  the  result  of  moral  suasion.  It  might 
be  true  that  "  God  oiFers  the  same  necessary  conditions  of  accept- 
ance to  all  men  ;  desires  from  the  heart  that  all  men  as  free  agents 
comply  with  them  and  live ;  brings  no  positive  influence  upon  any 
mind  against  compliance,  but,  on  the  contrary,  brings  all  those 
kinds  and  all  that  degree  of  influence  in  favour  of  it,  upon  each 
individual,  which  a  system  of  measures  best  arranged  for  the  suc- 
cess of  grace  in  a  world  of  rebellion  allows ;  and  finally,  saves, 
without  respect  of  kindred,  rank,  or  country,  whether  Scythian, 
Greek  or  Jew,  all  who  under  this  influence,  accept  the  terms  and 
work  out  their  own  salvation,  and  reprobates  alike  all  who  re- 
fuse." ^  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  Scriptures  teach  that 
"  man,  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of 
will  to  any  spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation  ;  so  as  a  natural 
man  being  altogether  averse  from  that  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is 
not  able,  by  his  own  strength,  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare 
himself  thereunto ;  "  ^  then  must  it  also  be  true  that  "  when  God 
converts  a  sinner,  and  translates  him  into  the  state  of  grace.  He 
freeth  him  from  his  natural  bondage  under  sin,  and  by  his  grace 
alone,  enables  him  freely  to  will  and  to  do  that  which  is  spiritually 
good."  ^  Then  is  it  also  true,  that  man  in  effectual  calling  "  is 
altogether  passive,  until,  being  quickened  and  renewed  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  he  is  thereby  enabled  to  answer  this  call,  and  to 
embrace  the  grace  offered  and  conveyed  in  it."*  If  man  is  as 
really  spiritually  dead,  in  his  natural  state  since  the  fall,  as  Lazarus 
was  corporeally  dead,  then  is  the  spiritual  resurrection  of  the  one  as 
really  a  work  of  divine  omnipotence  as  the  bodily  resurrection  of  the 
other.  These  doctrines,  therefore,  thus  logically  connected,  have 
never  in  fact  been  dissociated.  All  who  hold  that  original  sin 
involves  spiritual  death  and  consequent  utter  inability  to  any 
spiritual  good,  do  also  hold  that  his  recovery  from  that  state  is  not 
effected  by  any  process  of  moral  suasion  human  or  divine,  but  by 

1  The  Quarterly  Christian  Spectator,  of  New  Haven,  vol.  iii.  1831,  p.  635. 

2  Westminster  Confession,  cli.  ix.  §  3. 

8  Jbid.  ix.  §  4.  4  Ibid.  X.  §  2. 

VOL.  II.  46 


706  PART  III.     Ch.   XIV.  —  vocation. 

the  immediate  exercise  of  God's  almighty  power.  It  is  in  refer- 
ence to  both  classes  of  the  dead  that  our  Lord  said,  "As  the  Fa- 
ther raiseth  up  the  dead,  and  quickeneth  them  ;  even  so  the  Son 
quickeneth  whom  he  will.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  The 
hour  is  coming,  and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice 
of  the  Son  of  God :  and  they  that  hear  shall  live."  (John  v.  21, 
25.) 

There  is  the  same  intimate  connection  between  the  doctrines  of 
God's  sovereignty  in  election  and  efficacious  grace.  If  it  were 
true  that  men  make  themselves  to  differ;  that  election  is  founded 
on  the  foresight  of  good  works  ;  that  some  who  hear  the  Gospel 
and  feel  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  allow  themselves  to  be  per- 
suaded, that  others  refuse,  and  that  the  former  ai'e  therefore  chosen 
and  the  latter  rejected,  then  it  vi'ould  be  consistent  to  represent 
the  grace  exercised  in  the  vocation  of  men  as  an  influence  to  be 
submitted  to  or  rejected.  But  if  God  has  mercy  on  whom  He  will 
have  mercy ;  if  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that  run- 
neth, but  of  God  that  showeth  mercy  ;  if  it  be  of  God,  and  not 
of  ourselves,  that  we  are  in  Christ  Jesus ;  if  God  hides  these 
things  from  the  wise  and  prudent  and  reveals  them  unto  babes  as 
seems  good  in  his  sight  ;  then  the  influence  by  which  He  carries 
his  purpose  into  effect  must  be  efficacious  from  its  own  nature,  and 
not  owe  its  success  to  the  determination  of  its  subjects. 

The  same  conclusion  follows  from  what  the  Scri})tures  teach  of 
the  covenant  of  redemption.  If  in  that  covenant  God  gave  to 
the  Son  his  people  as  the  reward  of  his  obedience  and  death,  then 
all  those  thus  given  to  Him  must  come  unto  Him ;  and  the  influence 
which  secures  their  coming  must  be  certainly  efficacious.  Thus 
this  doctrine  is  implicated  with  all  the  other  great  doctrines  of 
grace.  It  is  an  essential,  or,  at  least,  an  inseparable  element  of 
that  system  which  God  has  revealed  for  the  salvation  of  men  ; 
a  system  the  grand  design  of  which  is  the  manifestation  of  the 
riches  of  divine  grace,  i.  e.,  of  his  unmerited,  mysterious  love  to 
the  unworthy ;  and  which,  therefore,  is  so  devised  and  so  adminis- 
tered that  he  that  -glories  must  glory  in  the  Lord  ;  he  must  be  con- 
strained to  say,  and  rejoice  in  saying,  "  Not  unto  us,  O  Loed  ;  not 
unto  us,  but  unto  thy  name  give  glory."     (Ps.  cxv.  1.) 

Argument  from  Experience. 

7.  Appeal  on  this  subject  may  safely  be  made  to  the  experience 
of  the  individual  believer,  and  to  the  history  of  the  Church.  All 
the  phenomena  of  the   Christian   life  are  in  accordance  with  the 


§5.]      PROOF   OF   DOCTRINE    OF   EFFICACIOUS   GRACE.       707 

f 

Auffustinian  doctrine   of  efficacious  gi'ace.     No  believer  ever  as- 
cribes  his  regeneration  to  himself.     He  does  not  recognize  him- 
self as  the  author  of  the  work,  or  his  own  relative  goodness,  his 
greater  susceptibility  to  good  impression,  or  his  greater  readiness 
of  persuasion,  as  the  reason  why  he  rather  than  others,  is  the  sub- 
ject of  this  change.     He  knows   that  it  is  a  work  of  God ;  and 
that  it  is  a  work  of  God's  free  grace.     His  heart  responds  to  the 
language  of  the  Apostle  when  he  says  :  "  Not  by  works  of  right- 
eousness which  we    have    done,   but   according  to  his  mercy  he 
saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."     (Tit.  iii.  5.)     Paul  says  of  himself  that  God,  hav- 
ing separated  him  from  his  mother's  womb  called  him  by  his  grace. 
(Gal.  i.  15.)     There  was  nothing  in  him,  M'ho  was  injurious  and 
a  persecutor,  to   demand   the   special   intervention   of  God  in  his 
behalf.     So  far  from  his  referring  his  vocation  to  himself,  to  his 
greater  readiness  to  yield  to   the   influence  of  the   truth,  he  con- 
stantly represents  himself  as  a  monument  of  the  wonderful  conde- 
scension and  grace  of  God.     He  would  have  little  patience  to  lis- 
ten to   the   philosophical    account  of  conversion,  which  makes  the 
fact  so  intelligible  why  one  believes  and  another  rejects  the  offer 
of  the  Gospel.    Paul's  conversion  is  the  type  of  every  genuine  con- 
version  from   that   day  to   this.      The    miraculous    circumstances 
attendino;  it  were  simply  adventitious.     He  was  not  converted  by 
the  audible  words  or  by  the  blinding  light,  which  encountered  him 
on   his   way   to  Damascus.      Our   Lord  said,   "  If  they  hear  not 
Moses  and  the   prophets,   neither  will   they  be   persuaded,  though 
one    rose    from    the    dead."     (Luke  xvi.   31.)     Neither  was  the 
change  effected  by  a  process  of  reasoning  or  persuasion.     It  was 
by  the    instantaneous    opening    his  eyes  to  see  the  glory  of  God 
in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.     And  this,  opening  his  eyes  was  as 
obviously  an  act  of  unmerited  favour  and  of  God's  almighty  power, 
as  was  the  restoration  of  the  blind   Bartimeus  to  sight.     God,  says 
the  Apostle,  revealed   his   Son   in   Him.     The   revelation  was  in- 
ternal and  spiritual.      What  was  true  in  his  own  experience,  he 
tells  us,  is  no  less  true  in  the  experience  of  other  believers.     "  The 
god  of  this  world,"   he  says,  "  hath    blinded  the  minds  of  them 
which   believe  not."     But   "  God,  who  commanded   the   light   to 
shine  out  of  darkness,  hath  shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light 
of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Chi'ist." 
(2  Cor.  iv.  4,  6.)     The  truth  concerning  the  person  and  work  of 
Christ  is  presented  objectively  to  all.     The  reason  why  some  see 
it,  and  others  do  not,  the  Apostle  refers  to  the  simple  fiat  of  Him 


708  PART  ni.   ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

who  said  in  the  beginning,  "  Let  there  be  h'ght."     This  is  Paul's 
theory  of  conversion. 

Five  thousand  persons  were  converted  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost. Most  of  them  had  seen  the  person  and  works  of  Christ. 
They  had  heard  his  instructions.  They  had  hitherto  resisted  all 
the  influences  flowing  from  the  exhibition  of  his  character  and  the 
truth  of  his  doctrines.  They  had  remained  obdurate  and  unbe- 
lieving under  all  the  strivings  of  the  Spirit  who  never  fails  to 
enforce  truth  on  the  reason  and  the  conscience.  Their  conversion 
was  sudden,  apparently  instantaneous.  It  was  radical,  affecting 
their  whole  character  and  determining  their  whole  subsequent  life. 
That  this  was  not  a  natural  change,  effected  by  the  influence  of 
trutli  on  the  mind,  or  produced  by  a  process  of  moral  suasion,  is 
primd  facie  certain  from  the  whole  narrative  and  from  the  nature 
of  tlie  case.  The  Holy  Ghost  was  poured  out  abundantly,  as  the 
Apostle  tells,  in  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  of  Joel.  Three  classes 
of  effects  immediately  followed.  First,  miracles  ;  that  is,  external 
manifestations  of  the  immediate  power  of  God.  Secondly,  the  im- 
mediate illumination  of  the  minds  of  the  Apostles,  by  which  they 
were  raised  from  the  darkness,  prejudices,  ignorance,  and  mistakes 
of  their  Jewish  state,  into  the  clear  comprehension  of  the  Gospel 
in  all  its  spirituality  and  catholicity.*  Thirdly,  the  instantaneous 
conversion  of  five  thousand  of  those  who  with  wicked  hands  had 
crucified  the  Lord  of  glory,  into  his  broken-hearted,  adoring,  de- 
voted worshippers  and  servants.  This  third  class  of  effects  is  as 
directly  referred  to  the  Spirit  as  either  of  the  o'thers.  They  all 
belong  to  the  same  general  category.  They  were  all  supernatural, 
that  is,  produced  by  the  immediate  agency  or  volition  of  the 
Spirit  of  God.  The  Rationalist  admits  that  they  are  all  of  the 
same  general  class.  But  lie  explains  them  all  as  natural  effects, 
discarding  all  supernatural  intervention.  He  has  the  advantage, 
so  far  as  consistency  is  concerned,  over  those  who  admit  the  gift 
of  tongues  and  the  illumination  of  the  Apostles  to  be  the  effects 
of  the  immediate  agency  of  the  Spirit,  but  insist  on  explaining  the 
conversions  as  the  consequents  of  argument  and  persuasion.  This 
explanation  is  not  only  inconsistent  with  the  narrative,  but  with  the 
Scriptural  method  of  accounting  for  these  wonderful  effects.  The 
Bible  says  they  are  produced  by  "  the  exceeding  greatness  of  " 
the  power  of  God  ;  that  He  raises  those  spiritually  dead  to  a  new 
life  ;  that  He  creates  a  new  heart  in  them  ;  that  He  takes  from  them 
the  heart  of  stone  and  gives  them  a  heart  of  flesh  ;  tliat  He  opens 
their  eyes,  and  commands  light  to  shine  into  their  hearts,  as  in  the 


§6.]  •  OBJECTIONS.  709 

beginning  He  commanded  light  to  shine  in  the  darkness  which 
brooded  over  chaos.  The  Bible,  therefore,  refers  conversion,  or 
regeneration,  to  the  class  of  events  due  to  the  immediate  exercise 
of  the  power  of  God. 

The  scenes  of  the  day  of  Pentecost  do  not  stand  alone  in  the 
history  of  the  Church.  Similar  manifestations  of  the  power  of 
the  Spirit  have  occurred,  and  are  still  occurring,  in  every  part  of 
the  world.  They  all  bear  as  unmistakably  the  impress  of  divine 
agency,  as  the  miracles  of  the  apostolic  age  did.  We  are  justi- 
fied, therefore,  in  saying  that  all  the  phenomena  of  Christian  ex- 
perience in  the  individual  believer  and  in  the  Church  collectively, 
bear  out  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  Efficacious  Grace,  and  are 
inconsistent  with  every  other  doctrine  on  the  subject. 

§  6.    Objections. 

There  are  no  specific  objections  against  the  doctrine  of  effica- 
cious grace  which  need  to  b^  considered.  Those  which  are  com- 
monly urged  are  pressed  with  equal  force  against  other  allied  doc- 
trines, and  have  already  come  under  review.     Thus,  — 

1.  It  is  urged  that  this  doctrine  destroys  human  responsibility. 
If  Ave  need  a  change  which  nothing  but  almighty  power  can  effect 
before  we  can  do  anything  spiritually  good,  we  cease  to  be  respon- 
sible. This  is  the  old  objection  that  inability  and  responsibility  are 
incompatible.  This  difficulty  has  been  presented  thousands  of  times 
in  the  history  of  the  Church,  and  has  been  a  thousand  times  an- 
swered. It  assumes  unwarrantably  that  an  inability  which  arises 
from  character,  and  constitutes  character,  is  incompatible  with  char- 
acter. 

2.  It  is  objected  that  if  nothing  but  the  creative  power  of  God 
can  enable  us  to  repent  and  believe,  we  must  patiently  wait  until 
that  power  is  exerted.  It  is  thus  doubtless  that  those  reason  who 
are  in  love  with  sin  and  do  not  really  desire  to  be  delivered  from 
it.  Some  leper,  when  Christ  was  upon  earth,  might  have  been  so 
unreasonable  as  to  argue  that  because  he  could  not  heal  himself, 
he  must  wait  until  Christ  came  to  heal  him.  The  natural  effect 
however,  of  a  conviction  of  utter  helplessness  is  to  impel  to  earnest 
application  to  the  source  whence  alone'help  can  come.  And  to  all 
who  feel  their  sinfulness  and  their  inability  to  deliver  themselves, 
there  is  the  promise,  "  Come  unto  me  ...  .  and  I  will  give  you 
rest."  "  Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  you  ;  seek,  and  ye  shall  find  ; 
knock,  and  it  shall  be  opened  unto  you."  It  will  be  time  enouo-h 
for  any  man  to  complain  Avhen  he  fails  to  experience  Christ's  heal- 


710  PART  ni.   Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

ing  power,  after  having  sought  it  as  long,  as  earnestly,  and  as 
submissively  to  the  directions  of  God's  Word  as  its  importance 
demands  ;  or,  even  with  the  assiduity  and  zeal  with  which  men 
seek  the  perishing  things  of  this  life. 

3.  It  is  objected  that  a  doctrine  which  supposes  the  intervention 
of  the  immediate  agency  of  the  Great  First  Cause  in  the  develop- 
ment of  history,  or  regular  series  of  events,  is  contrary  to  all  true 
philosophy,  and  inconsistent  with  the  relation  of  God  to  the  world. 
This  is  a  point,  however,  as  to  which  philosopliy  and  tlie  Bible, 
and  not  the  Bible  only,  but  also  natural  religion,  are  at  variance. 
The  Scriptures  teach  the  doctrines  of  creation,  of  a  particular  prov- 
idence, of  supernatural  revelation,  of  inspiration,  of  the  incarnation, 
of  miracles,  and  of  a  future  resurrection,  all  of  which  are  founded 
on  the  assumption  of  tlie  supernatural  and  immediate  agency  of 
God.  If  the  Scriptures  be  true,  the  philosophy  which  denies  the 
possibility  of  such  immediate  intervention,  must  be  false.  There 
every  Christian  is  willing  to  leave  the  question. 

§  7.  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  Grace. 

The  doctrines  of  sin  and  gi*ace  are  so  intimately  related,  that  the 
one  cannot  be  stated  without  involving  a  statement  of  the  other. 
Hence  the  views  of  different  parties  in  the  Church  in  reference  to 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the  salvation  of  men,  have  already  been 
incidentally  presented  in  the  chapter  on  Sin.  With  regard  to  the 
period  antecedent  to  the  Pelagian  controversy,  it  may  be  sufficient 
to  remark,  (1.)  As  there  was  no  general  discussion  of  these  sub- 
jects, there  were  no  defined  parties  whose  opinions  were  clearly 
announced  and  generally  known.  (2.)  It  is  therefore,  not  the 
creeds  adopted  by  the  Church,  but  the  opinions  of  individual  writ- 
ers, to  which  reference  can  be  made  as  characteristic  of  this  pe- 
riod. (3.)  That  the  statements  of  a  few  ecclesiastical  writers  are 
very  insufficient  data  on  which  to  found  a  judgment  as  to  the  faith 
of  the  people.  The  convictions  of  believers  are  not  determined  by 
the  writings  of  theologians,  but  by  the  Scriptures,  the  services  of 
the  Church,  and  the  inward  teaching  of  the  Spirit,  that  is,  by  the 
unction  from  the  Holy  One  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks,  1  John  ii. 
20.  (4.)  There  is  abundant  evidence  that  the  Church  then,  as 
always,  held  that  all  men  since  the  fall  are  in  a  state  of  sin  and 
condemnation  ;  that  this  universality  of  sin  had  its  historical  and 
causal  origin  in  the  voluntary  apostasy  of  Adam  ;  that  deliverance 
from  this  state  of  sin  and  misery  can  be  obtained  only  through 
Christ,  and  by  the  aid  of  his  Spirit ;  and  that  even  infants  as  soon 


§  7.]  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE.  711 

as  born  need  regeneration  and  redemption.  The  practice  of  infant 
baptism  was  a  constant  profession  of  faith  in  the  doctrines  of  origi- 
nal sin  and  of  regeneration  by  the  immediate  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  (5.)  It  is  no  doubt  true  that  many  declarations  may  be 
cited  from  the  early  writers,  especially  of  the  Greek  Church,  in- 
consistent with  one  or  more  of  the  doctrines  just  stated ;  but  it  is 
no  less  true  that  these  same  writers  and  others  of  equal  authority 
explicitly  avow  them.  (6.)  As  the  prevalent  heresies  of  that  time 
tended  to  fatalism,  the  natural  counter  tendency  of  the  Church 
was  to  the  undue  exaltation  of  the  liberty  and  ability  of  the  human 
will.  (7.)  That  this  tendency  was  specially  characteristic  of  the 
Greek  Church,  and  has  continued  to  distinguish  the  theology  of 
that  Church  to  the  present  day. 

Pelagian  Doctrine. 

The  Pelagian  doctrine  has  already  repeatedly  been  presented. 
It  is  onl}'-  in  reference  to  the  views  of  Pelagius  and  his  followers  on 
the  subject  of  grace  that  anything  need  now  be  said.  As  the 
Pelagians  insisted  so  strenuously  upon  the  plenary  ability  of  man 
to  avoid  all  sin,  and  to  fulfil  all  duty,  it  was  obvious  to  object  that 
they  ignored  the  necessity  of  divine  grace  of  which  the  Scriptures 
so  frequently  and  so  plainly  speak.  This  objection,  however,  Pela- 
gius resented  as  an  injury.  He  insisted  that  he  fully  recognized 
the  necessity  of  divine  grace  for  everything  good,  and  magnified 
its  office  oil  every  occasion. ^  In  a  letter  to  Innocent  he  assures  the 
Roman  bishop  that  while  praising  the  nature  of  man,  we  always 
add  the  help  of  the  grace  of  God  ;  "  ut  Dei  semper  gratis  addamus 
auxilium."^  By  grace,  however,  he  meant,  (1.)  Free  will,  the 
ability  to  do  right  under  all  circumstances.  This  inalienable  en- 
dowment of  our  nature  he  regarded  as  a  great  distinction  or  gift  of 
God.  (2.)  The  law,  and  especially  the  revelation  of  God  in  the 
Gospel,  and  the  example  of  Christ.  He  says  God  rouses  men  from 
the  pursuit  of  earthly  things,  by  his  promises  of  future  blessedness, 
etc.^  (3.)  The  forgiveness  of  sin.  The  Pelagian  heresy  "  asserts 
that  '  the  grace  of  God  Includes  our  being  so  created  that  we  have 
power  to  avoid  sin,  that  God  has  given  us  the  help  of  the  law  and 
of  his  commands,  and  further  that  he  pardons  those  who  havino- 
sinned  return  tinto  him.'  *     In  these  things  alone  is  the  grace  of 

1  See  his  letter  to  Innocent,  a.  d.  417,  quoted  by  Augustine,  De  Gratia  Chinsti  [xxxi- 
XXXV.],  33-38;  Works,  edit.  Benedictines,  Paris,  1838,  vol.  x.  pp.  549-5.52. 

2  Augustine,  De  Gratia  Christi  [xxxvii.],  40;  p.  553,  a. 
8  Jbid.  [x.],ll;  pp.  535,  536. 

*  Augustine,  de  Gestis  Pelagii;    Works,  vol.  x.  p.  518,  b. 


712  PART  m.    Ch.  XIV.— VOCATION. 

God  recognized."  (4.)  Both  Pelagius  and  Julian  speak  of  the 
operation  of  the  Spirit  on  the  minds  of  men  as  a  form  of  divine 
grace.  In  commenting  on  the  words,  "  Ye  are  ....  the  epistle 
of  Christ "  (2  Cor.  iii.  3),  Pelagius  says,  "  To  all  it  is  manifest 
that  through  our  doctrine  ye  have  believed  on  Christ,  'confirmante 
virtutem  Spiritu  Sancto.'  "  This  influence  of  the  Spirit,  however, 
he  regarded  as  didactic,  or  enlightening  the  mind  ;  while  he  denied 
the  absolute  necessity  of  such  spiritual  influence,  and  taught  that 
it  only  rendered  obedience  more  easy.^ 

We  have  already  seen  that  Augustine,  holding  as  he  did  that 
man  since  the  fall  is  in  a  state  of  spiritual  death,  utterly  disabled 
and  opposite  to  all  good,  taught  that  his  restoration  to  spiritual  life 
was  an  act  of  God's  almighty  power;  and  being  an  act  of  omnipo- 
tence was  instantaneous,  immediate,  and  irresistible.  This  point  is 
sufficiently  well  known  and  already  established. 

Semi-Pelagianism. 

The  doctrine  of  Pelagius  had  been  condemned  in  the  provincial 
Synod  of  Carthage,  a.  d.  412 ;  in  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  413  ; 
and  in  the  Third  General  Council  at  Ephesus,  431.  The  opposite 
doctrine  of  Augustine  was  declared  to  be  Scriptural  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church.  It  was  one  of  the  inevitable  consequences 
of  Augustine's  doctrine  of  efficacious  grace,  that  God  is  sovereign 
in  election  and  reprobation.  If  the  sinner  cannot  convert  himself, 
nor  prepare  himself  for  that  work,  nor  cooperate  in  effecting  it, 
then  it  can  neither  be  out  of  regard  to  such  preparation  or  coopera- 
tion, nor  because  of  the  foresight  thereof  that  God  makes  one,  and 
not  another  the  subject  of  his  saving  grace.  This  Augustine  freely 
admitted,  and  taught,  in  accordance  with  tlie  plain  teachings  of  the 
Scriptures,  that  God  has  mercy  on  whom  He  will  have  mercy.  It 
was  this  inevitable  consequence  of  the  doctrine  rather  than  the 
doctrine  itself,  whether  of  total  depravity  and  helplessness,  or  of 
irresistible  grace,  that  led  to  the  strenuous  opposition  which  con- 
tinued to  be  made  to  the  Augustinian  system  notwithstanding  the 
decision  of  councils  in  its  favour.  So  prominent  was  the  doctrine 
of  predestination  in  these  controversies,  and  so  strong  was  the 
antipathy  to  that  doctrine,  that  the  Augustinians  were  called  by 
their  opponents  Prcedestinati.  To  avoid  the  drea*ded  conclusion 
that  fallen  men  lie  at  the  mercy  of  God,  and  that  He  has  mercy 
on  whom  He  will  have  mercy,  the  Semi-Pelagians  denied  that  the 
grace  of  God  was  irresistible.     If  not  irresistible,  then  it  depends 

1  Wiggers,  p.  183.  See  Wiggers'  Augusliiiisn  and  Pelayianism,  cli.  xiii.,  Andover,  1840, 
pp.  177-218. 


§  7.]  HISTORY   OF  THE  DOCTRINE.  713 

on  the  sinner  whether  it  be  yielded  to  or  rejected.  But  this  yield- 
ing to  the  grace  of  God,  is  something  right  and  good,  and  some- 
thing leading  to  salvation.  Fallen  men  therefore  are  not  utterly 
disabled  to  all  good.  And  if  not  thus  powerless  for  spiritual  good, 
they  are  not  spiritually  dead.  Original  sin  consequently,  is  not  so 
dreadful  an  evil  as  Augustine  represented  it.  Men  are  weak  and 
sick  ;  but  not  helpless  and  dead.  The  Semi-Pelagians,  as  the 
designation  implies,  therefore,  endeavoured  to  hold  a  middle  ground 
between  Augustine  and  Pelagius.  They  held,  (1.)  That  in  con- 
sequence of  the  fall  of  Adam,  and  our  connection  with  him,  all 
men  are  born  in  a  state  of  sin  and  condemnation.  (2.)  That  in 
consequence  of  this  inherent,  hereditary  corruption,  all  the  powers 
of  man  are  weakened,  so  that  he  is  of  himself  unable  to  resist  sin 
and  turn  himself  unto  God.  (3.)  But  while  divine  grace  or  aid  is 
thus  necessary  to  conversion,  men  may  begin  the  work.  They 
may  seek  after  God,  strive  to  walk  in  his  ways,  and  comply  with 
all  the  demands  of  the  gospel.  (4.)  Those  who  thus  begin  the 
work  of  conversion,  God  assists  in  their  endeavours  by  his  grace  ; 
and  if  the  sinner  makes  due  improvement  of  this  divine  assistance, 
the  work  of  conversion  is  effected.  (5.)  As  it  rests  with  those 
who  hear  the  gospel  to  receive  or  to  reject  it,  it  cannot  be  admitted 
that  any  definite  portion  of  the  human  race  was  given  to  Christ  as 
his  inheritance  whose  salvation  is  rendered  certain  by  that  gift,  and 
by  the  efficacious  grace  of  God  securing  their  conversion  and  their 
perseverance  in  faith.  As  the  conversion  of  the  sinner  depends 
upon  himself,  so  does  his  perseverance.  The  truly  regenerated, 
therefore,  may  fall  away  and  be  lost. 

On  some  of  these  points  the  original  leaders  of  the  Semi-Pela- 
gian party  differed  among  themselves,  but  this  is  a  correct  exhibi- 
tion of  the  system  as  known  in  history  as  a  form  of  doctrine.  The 
characteristic  principle  of  the  Semi-Pelagian  theory,  by  which  it  is 
distinguished  from  the  doctrine  afterwards  adopted  in  the  Romish 
Chui'ch,  and  by  the  Remonstrants  and  others,  is  that  the  sinner  be- 
gins the  work  of  conversion.  The  Semi-Pelagians  denied  "  pre- 
venting grace."  God  helps  those  only  who  begin  to  help  them- 
selves.    He  is  found  only  of  those  who  seek  Him. 

The  historical  details  of  the  rise  of  Semi-Pelajjianism  are  mven 
above  in  the  section  on  Original  Sin.  The  most  obscure  point  in 
the  system  is  the  meaning  to  be  attached  to  the  word  "  grace."  It 
was  used,  as  before  remarked,  in  a  sense  so  wide  as  to  include  all 
divine  help,  whether  afforded  extei'nally  in  the  revelation  of  the 
truth,  the  institutions  of  the  Church,  or  the  circumstances  of  life. 


714  PART  m.  ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

or  by  the  providential  efficiency  of  God  as  exerted  in  cooperation 
with  all  second  causes,  or  by  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  This  last  came  to  be  the  accepted  meaning  of  the  word 
grace.  According  to  Augustinians,  tliis  influence  of  the  Spirit 
was  mediate,  or  through  the  truth,  in  all  those  exercises  which,  in 
the  case  of  adults,  usually  precede  the  work  of  regeneration,  such 
as  conviction,  remorse,  anxiety,  desire  for  deliverance  from  the 
curse  of  the  law,  etc.  ;  and  also  in  the  constant  activity  of  the  soul 
after  regeneration  in  the  exercise  of  all  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit.  It 
is,  however,  immediate,  creative,  and  almighty  in  the  work  of  re- 
generation. A  blind  man  might  be  deeply  sensible  of  the  misery 
of  his  sightless  state,  and  earnestly  desire  that  his  eyes  should  be 
opened.  He  might  be  informed  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  restored 
sight  to  the  blind.  Arguments  might  be  used  to  awaken  confi- 
dence in  the  power  and  willingness  of  Jesus  to  grant  that  blessing 
to  him.  Under  these  mediate  influences  he  might  frequent  the 
place  where  Jesus  was  to  be  found,  and  seek  his  aid.  If  the  Lord 
spake  the  word,  his  eyes  were  instantly  opened.  Then  all  the 
glories  of  the  heavens  and  the  wonders  of  the  earth  broke  on  his 
view.  The  state  of  that  man's  mind  was  very  complex.  It  was 
the  result  of  many  cooperating  causes.  But  the  restoration  of 
sight  itself,  was  the  simple,  mediate,  instantaneous  effort  of  almighty 
power.  This  was  precisely  what  the  Semi-Pelagians  denied  as  in 
relation  to  regeneration.  They  saw  that  if  that  was  admitted, 
they  must  admit  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  election  and  all  the 
other  features  of  the  Augustinian  system.  They,  therefore,  insisted 
not  only  that  the  preliminary  work  was  from  the  man  himself,  and 
not  due  to  the  Spirit's  drawing  one  man  and  not  another,  but  that 
in  eveiy  state  of  the  process,  the  Spirit's  influence  was  mediate, 
i.  e.,  a  moral  suasion  through  the  truth,  which  could  be,  and  in 
multitudes  of  cases  actually  is,  effectually  resisted.  These  are  the 
doctrines  condemned  in  the  Councils  of  Orange  and  Valence,  A.  D. 
529.  The  decrees  of  those  Councils  being  ratified  by  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  Augustinianism  was  reestablished  as  the  authoritative 
form  of  doctrine  for  the  Latin  Church. 

Scholastic  Period. 

All  conceivable  forms  of  doctrine  concerning  sin  and  grace  were 
ventilated  successively  by  the  subtle  intellects  of  the  schoolmen  of 
the  Middle  Ages.  Some  of  the  theologians  of  that  period  were 
really  pantheistic  in  their  philosi^phy  ;  others,  while  recognizinir  ^i 
personal  God,  merge  all  tlie   efficiency  of  second   cnu-^cs  in  his  om- 


§  7.]      •  HISTORY   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  715 

nipresent  agency  ;  others  went  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  making 
the  human  will  independent  of  God,  and  maintained  that  men  can 
act  contrary  to  all  kinds  and  degrees  of  influence  not  destructive 
of  their  nature,  which  may  be  brought  to  bear  upon  them.  These 
sided  naturally  with  Pelagius.  Plenary  ability,  the  power  to  do 
whatever  is  obligatory,  they  said,  is  essential  to  free  agency.  Men 
may,  therefore,  abstain  from  all  sin.  When  pinners  they  may  turn 
themselves  unto  God.  If  God  condescends  to  aid  them  in  this 
work,  either  by  external  revelations  or  by  inward  influence,  they 
must  have  the  power  to  yield  or  to  refuse.  The  alternative  rests 
with  themselves.  Others  again  come  nearer  to  the  Semi-Pelagian 
theory,  admitting  that  man  cannot  save  himself;  cannot  turn  unto 
God  ;  cannot  repent  or  believe  without  divine  aid.  But  this  aid 
they  held  was  given  to  all  in  sufficient  measure  to  enable  every  man 
to  become  and  to  continue  a  true  penitent  and  believer.  Many 
of  the  most  distino-uished  theologians  of  the  Latin  Church,  how- 
ever,  during  this  period  adhered  more  or  less  closely  to  the  doc- 
trines of  Augustine.  This  was  the  case  with  Leo  and  Gregory  the 
Great,  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries,  and  Bede  and  Alcuin  in  the 
eighth  and  ninth.  When,  however,  Gottschalk  avowed  the  Augus- 
tinian  doctrine,  not  only  of  original  sin  and  grace,  but  also  of  pre- 
destination, it  gave  rise  to  violent  opposition  and  issued  in  his  con- 
demnation in  the  Council  of  Chiersy,  849,  under  the  influence  of 
Hincmar  ;  but  in  the  opposing  Council  of  Valence,  855  A.  D.,  the 
doctrines  of  election  and  grace  in  the  Augustinian  sense  were 
maintained. 

Anselm  in  the  eleventh  century  was  essentially  Augustinian  in 
his  views  of  sin  and  grace.  He  held  that  man  is  born  in  a  state 
of  sin,  with  a  will  enslaved  to  evil,  free  only  in  sinning.  From 
this  state  of  helplessness,  he  can  be  freed  only  by  the  grace  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  not  by  his  own  power,  and  not  by  an  influence 
which  owes  its  success   to  the  cooperation  of  an  enslaved  will.^ 

The  two  great  contending  powers  in  the  Latin  Church  for  two 
centuries  before  the  Council  of  Trent,  were  the  Dominicans  and 
Franciscans,  the  Thomists  and  Scotists,  the  former  the  followers 
of  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  the  latter  of  Duns  Scotus.  As  Aquinas 
adopted  very  nearly  the  doctrine  of  Augustine  concerning  original 
sin,  so  he  approached  more  nearly  to  Augustinianism  in  his  views 
concerning   grace    and  predestination   than    the    majority    of   the 

1  See  J.  A.  Hasse's  Anselm  von  Canterbury ;  Parts  I.  and  II.,  the  second  part  containing 
an  exposition  of  his  doctrines.  See  also  Dr.  Shedd's  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  vol.  ii. 
ch.  5. 


716  PART  UI.     Ch.   XIV.  — vocation. 

schoolmen.  He  held  that  man  since  the  fall  had  lost  all  ability 
to  anything  spiritually  good  ;  that,  without  grace,  he  could  do 
nothing  acceptable  to  God  or  which  secured  salvation.  But  he 
held,  — 

1.  That  a  gratia  preveniens^  a  divine  influence  which  precedes 
any  good  effort  on  the  part  of  the  sinner  is  granted  to  men,  by 
which  they  are  excited,  encouraged,  and  aided.  If  this  influence 
be  improved,  it  secures  the  merit  of  congruity,  "  Quia  coiigruum 
est,  ut  dum  homo  bene  utitur  sua  virtute,  Deus  secundum  super- 
excellentem  virtutem  excellentius  operetur."  ^  This  divine  influ- 
ence is  called  "  gratia  prima,"  and  "  gratia  gratis  data." 

2.  To  this  preventing  grace  when  improved,  is  added  the  "  gra- 
tia gratum  faciens,"  renewing  grace,  called  also  "gratia  operans  ;  '* 
and,  in  reference  to  its  effects,  "  gratia  habitualis,"  by  which  is 
meant,  "  infusio  gratiae." 

3.  To  this  succeeds  the  constant  "  gratia  cooperans."  *'  Gratia," 
he  says,  "  dupliciter  potest  intelligi.  Uno  modo  divinum  auxilium 
quo  nos  movet  ad  bene  volendum  et  agendum.  Alio  modo  habit- 
uale  donum."  Again,  "  Gratia  dividitur  in  operantem  et  cooper- 
antem,  secundum  diversos  effectus,  ita  etiam  in  praevenientem  et 
subsequentem,  qualitercunque  gratia  accipiatnr.  Sunt  autem 
quinque  effectus  gratije  in  nobis,  quorum  primus  est,  ut  anima  sane- 
tur:  secundus,  ut  bonum  velit  ;  tertius  est,  ut  bonum  quod  vult, 
efficaciter  operetur :  quartus  est,  ut  in  bono  perseveret :  quintus 
est,  ut  ad  gloriam  perveniat."  ^ 

Duns  Scotus,  in  his  philosophy  and  theology,  was  indeed  devoted 
to  the  Church,  but  antagonistic  to  the  views  of  her  most  distin- 
guished teachers.  This  antagonism  was  most  pronounced  against 
Thomas  Aquinas,  whose  opinions  he  took  every  opportunity  of  op- 
posing. Scotus  endeavoured,  as  far  as  possible,  to  obliterate  the 
distinction  between  the  supernatural  and  the  natural.  Admitting 
the  operations  of  divine  grace,  and  their  necessity,  he  endeavoured 
to  reduce  them  to  the  category  of  the  natural  or  established  agency 
of  God  in  cooperation  with  second  causes.  He  held  the  doctrine 
of  "  absolute  power,"  according  to  which  ev^erything,  the  moral 
law,  the  method  of  salvation,  everything  but  absolute  contradic- 
tions, are  subject  to  the  arbitrary  will  of  God.  God  can,  as  Scotus 
taught,  make  right  wrong  and  wrong  right,  love  a  crime  and  malice 
a  virtue.  Nothing  has  any  value  or  merit  in  itself.  It  depends 
simply  on  the  good  pleasure  of  God,  what  it  avails.     There  is  no 

1  Summa,  ii.  i.  qu.  cxiv.  6,  edit.  Cologne,  1640,  p.  219  a,  of  second  set. 

2  /bid.  qu.  cxi.  2,  3,  pp.  210  b,  211  a. 


§  7.]  HISTORY   OF  THE  DOCTRINE.  717 

merit,  much  less  infinite  merit  in  the  work  of  Christ.  God  might 
have  made  anytiiing  else,  even  the  most  insignificant,  the  ground 
of  our  salvation.  The  requisition  of  faith  and  repentance  in  order 
to  salvation  is  alike  arbitrary.  It  depends  solely  on  the  absolute 
will  of  God  that  holiness,  the  supernatural  work  of  the  Spirit,  has 
higher  value  than  morality,  which  is  the  product  of  the  unassisted 
free-will  of  man.  Sin  is  wholly  voluntary.  Hereditary  depravity 
is  not  truly  sin  ;  it  is  simply  the  want  of  the  supernatural  right- 
eousness which  Adam  lost  for  himself  and  for  all  his  posterity. 
The  will  remains  free.  Man  can  sin  or  avoid  all  sin.  Neverthe- 
less, God  determines  to  accept  only  the  fruits  of  grace,  with  which 
the  will  cooperates.  It  was  principally  the  doctrine  of  Duns  Sco- 
tus  concerning  original  sin,  and  its  universality,  and  especially  in 
reference  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  which  was  the  subject  of  constant 
conflict  between  the  Dominicans  and  Franciscans  in  the  Latin 
Church.i 

The  Tridentine  Doctrine. 

The  Council  of  Trent  had  a  very  difficult  task  to  perform  in 
framing  a  statement  of  the  doctrines  of  sin  and  grace  which,  while 
it  condemned  the  Protestant  doctrine,  should  not  obviously  infringe 
against  either  the  acknowledged  doctrines  of  the  Latin  Church,  or 
the  cherished  views  of  one  or  other  of  the  conflicting  parties 
within  its  pale.  This,  indeed,  was  not  merely  a  difficult,  but  an 
impossible  task.  It  was  impossible  to  condemn  the  Protestant 
doctrine  on  these  subjects  without  condemning  the  doctrine  of  Au- 
gustine, which  the  Church  had  already  sanctioned.  The  Council 
availed  itself  of  generalities  as  far  as  possible,  and  strove  so  to 
frame  its  canons  as  to  secure  the  assent  of  the  greatest  number. 
On  the  subject  of  grace  it,  (1.)  Expressly  condemned  the  Pelagian 
doctrine  of  free-will  or  plenary  ability.  "  Si  quis  dixerit  hom- 
inem  suis  operibus,  quae  vel  per  humanae  naturae  vires,  vel  per 
legis  doctrinam  fiant,  absque  divina  per  Jesum  Christum  gratia 
posse  justificari  (become  holy)  coram  Deo  ;  anathema  sit."  "  Si 
quis  dixerit,  ad  hoc  solum  gratiam  per  Jesum  Christum  dari,  ut  fa- 
cilius  homo  justi  vivere,  ac  vitam  aeternam  promereri  possit ;  quasi 
per  liberum  arbitrium  sine  gratia  utrumque,  sed  asgre  tamen,  et 
difficiliter  possit ;  anathema  sit."  (2.)  It  condemned  with  equal 
distinctness  the  Semi-Pelagian  doctrine  that  man  begins  the  work 
of  conversion:  "Si  quis  dixerit,  sine  praevenienti  Spiritus  Sancti 
inspiratione,  atque  ejus  adjutorio,  hominem- credere,  sperare,  dili- 

1  On  the  philosophical  and  theological  position  of  Duns  Scotus,  see  Hitter's  Geschichta 
der  Clirisdichen  Phitosopkie,  Hamburg,  1845,  vol.  iv.  pp.  354-472. 


718  PART  III.     Ch.   XIV.  —  vocation. 

gere  aut  poenitere  posse,  sicut  oportet,  ut  ei  justificationis  (recren- 
eration)  gratia  conferatur  ;  anathema  sit."  (3.)  Against  the  Re- 
formers and  Augustine  the  Council  decided,  "  Si  quis  dixerit,  lib- 
erum  hominis  arbitrium  a  Deo  motum,  et  excitatum  nihil  cooperari 
assentiendo  Deo  excitanti,  atque  vocanti,  quo  ad  obtinendam  justifi- 
cationis gratiam  se  disponat,  ac  prteparet ;  neque  posse  dissentire 
si  veht ;  sed  velut  inanime  quoddam  nihil  omnino  agere,  mereque 
passive  se  habere  ;  anathema  sit."  "  Si  quis  liberum  hominis 
arbitrium  [by  which  is  meant,  potestas  ad  utramque  parteni\  post 
Adas  peccatum  amissum,  et  extinctum  esse  dixerit ;  aut  rem  esse 
de  solo  titulo,  immo  titulum  sine  re,  figmentum  denique  a  Satana 
invectum  in  ecclesiam  :  anathema  sit."  ^ 

There  is  of  course  confusion  and  misapprehension  in  all  these 
statements.  The  Protestants  did  not  deny  that  men  cooperate  in 
their  own  conversion,  taking  that  word  in  the  sense  in  which  the 
Romanists  used  the  term  (and  the  still  broader  term  Justification, 
as  including  the  whole  work  of  turnino;  unto  God.  No  one  denies 
that  the  man  in  the  synagogue  cooperated  in  stretching  out  his 
withered  arm  or  that  the  impotent  one  at  the  pool  was  active  in 
obeying  the  command  of  Christ,  "  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go 
unto  thine  house."  But  the  question  is,  Did  they  cooperate  in 
the  communication  of  vital  power  to  their  impotent  limbs  ?  So 
Protestants  do  not  deny  that  the  soul  is  active  in  conversion,  that 
the  "  arbitrium  a  Deo  motum  "  fi'eely  assents  ;  but  they  do  deny 
that  the  sinner  is  active  and  cooperating  in  the  production  of  the 
new  life  in  the  exercise  of  which  the  sinner  turns  to  God.  Moeh- 
ler,  the  ablest  and  most  plausible  of  the  modern  defenders  of  Ro- 
manism, uses  the  word  "  new-birth  "  as  including  the  life-long 
process  of  sanctification,  in  which  the  soul  is  abundantly  coopera- 
tive. He  recognizes,  however,  tiie  radical  difference  between  the 
Tridentine  doctrine  and  that  of  the  Protestants.  He  insists  that  in 
the  whole  work,  in  regeneration  in  its  limited  sense,  as  well  as  in 
conversion,  the  soul  cooperates  with  the  Spirit,  and  that  it  depends 
on  this  cooperation,  whether  the  sinner  receives  the  new  life  or 
not.  The  power  of  the  Spirit  in  all  its  inward  operations  may  be 
resisted  or  assented  to  as  the  free-will  of  the  subjects  of  his  influ- 
ence may  decide.  "  According  to  Catholic  principles,"  as  before 
quoted,  he  says,  "there  are  two  agencies  combined  in  the  work 
of  the  new  birth,  the  human  and  the  divine,  so  that  it  is  a  divine- 
human  work.  The  divine  influence  goes  first,  exciting,  awaken- 
ing  and  vivifying,  without   any  agency  of  the  man  in  meriting, 

1  Sess.  VI.  can.  i.-v. ;  Streitwolf,  Libri  SynihoUci,  pp.  33,  34. 


§7.]  HISTORY   OF  THE  DOCTRINE.  719 

invoking,  or  procuring  it ;  but  the  subject  must  allow  himself  to  be 
aroused  and  must  freely  follow.  God  offers  his  help  to  deliver 
fi'om  the  fall,  but  the  sinner  must  consent  to  be  helped  and  em- 
brace the  offered  aid  ;  if  he  accepts,  he  is  taken  by  the  divine 
Spirit,  and  gradually,  although  in  this  life  never  perfectly,  restored 
to  the  heights  from  which  he  fell.  The  Spirit  of  God  does  not 
work  by  necessitating,  although  he  is  actively  urgent ;  his  omnipo- 
tence sets  itself  a  limit  in  human  liberty,  which  it  does  not  over- 
step ;  for  such  violation  of  free  agency  would  be  the  destruction 
of  the  moral  order  of  the  world  which  eternal  wisdom  has  founded 
on  liberty."  He  therefore  justifies  the  Papal  condemnation  of  the 
Jansenist  doctrine  :  "  Quando  Deus  vult  animam  salvam  facere, 
et  earn  tangit  interiori  gratias  su£e  manu,  nulla  voluntas  humana  ei 
resistit.  —  Dei  gratia  nihil  aliud  est,  quam  ejus  omnipotens  volun- 
tas." 1  On  the  following  page,^  he  says,  "  The  Catholic  doctrine 
that  there  are  in  fallen  men  moral  and  religious  powers  which  do 
not  always  sin,  and  which  must  in  the  new  birth  be  called  into 
exercise,  gave  rise  to  the  idea,  that  this  activity  of  what  is  natural 
in  man,  was  a  transition  into  grace,  that  is,  that  the  right  use  of 
what  is  natural  conditions  or  secures  grace.  This  would  indeed 
be  Pelagian,  and    the    man,  not  Christ,  would   merit  grace,  and 

grace  cease  to  be  grace The  delicate  and  refined  sense  of 

the  Catholic  doctrine,  which  carefully  distinguishes  between  nature 
and  grace,  avoids  that  difficulty.  The  finite,  even  when  sinless, 
may  stretch  itself  to  the  utmost,  it  never  reaches  the  Infinite,  so 
as  to  seize  and  appropriate  it.  Nature  may  honestly  unfold  all  its 
powers,  it  never  can  by  and  out  of  itself  be  sublimated  into  the 
Supernatural  ;  the  human  can  by  no  exertion  of  power  make  itself 
divine.  There  is  an  impassable  gulf  between  the  two,  if  grace 
does  not  interpose.  The  divine  must  come  down  to  the  human,  if 
the  human  is  to  become  divine."  This  is  philosophy.  The  ques- 
tion is  not,  whether  the  finite  can  attain  the  Infinite,  or  the  human 
become  divine.  Nor  is  the  question  between  Romanists  and 
Protestants,  Whether  fallen  men  can  become  holy  without  the 
supernatural  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  the  question  is, 
Whether  the  regeneration  of  the  soul  is  due  to  the  nature  of  the 
Spirit's  influence,  and  to  the  purpose  of  God,  or  to  the  consent 
and  cooperation  of  the  subject  of  that  influence. 

1  Symbolik,  6th  edit.,  Mainz,  1843,  ch.  in.  §  ii.  pp.  105,  10& 

2  Pages  113,  lU. 


720  PART  m.   Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

The  Synergistic  Controversy. 
The  Lutherans  from  the  beginning  held  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin  in  its  most  extreme  form.  In  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  the 
Apology  for  that  Confession,  in  the  Smalcald  Articles,  and  finally, 
in  the  Form  of  Concord,  that  doctrine  is  stated  in  stronger  terms 
than  in  any  other  Christian  Symbol.  If  men  are  since  the  fall  in 
a  state  of  condemnation,  if  the  hereditary  corruption  derived  from 
Adam  is  not  only  truly  sin,  but  the  deepest  and  greatest  of  all 
sins ;  if  the  soul  is  not  merely  morally  sick  and  enfeebled,  but 
spiritually  dead,  as  taught  in  those  Symbols,  then  it  follows  :  (1.) 
That  man  since  the  fall  has  no  ability  to  anything  spiritually  good. 
(2.)  That  in  order  to  his  return  to  God  he  needs  the  life-giving 
power  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  (3.)  That  the  sinner  can  in  no  way 
prepare  himself  to  be  the  subject  of  this  grace,  he  cannot  merit  it, 
nor  can  he  cooperate  with  it.  Regeneration  is  exclusively  the 
work  of  the  Spirit,  in  which  man  is  the  subject  and  not  the  agent. 
(4.)  That,  therefore,  it  depends  on  God,  and  not  on  man,  who  are, 
and  who  are  not,  to  be  made  partakers  of  eternal  life.  (5.)  That 
consequently  God  acts  as  a  sovereign,  according  to  his  good  pleas- 
ure, and  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will,  in  saving  some 
and  in  passing  by  others,  who  are  left  to  the  just  i-ecompense  of 
their  sins.  All  these  inferences  are,  as  Augustinians  believe,  drawn 
in  Scripture,  and  were  freely  accepted  by  Luther  and,  at  first,  by 
the  Lutheran  Church.  Before  the  death  of  the  Reformer,  and 
more  openly  after  that  event,  many  of  the  Lutheran  theolo- 
gians adopted  the  later  views  of  Melancthon,  who  taught,  "  Con- 
currunt  tres  causae  bonae  actionis,  verbum  Dei,  Spiritus  Sanctus,  et 
humana  voluntas  assentiens  nee  repugnans  verbo  Dei.  Posset 
enim  excutere,  ut  excutit  Saul  sua  sponte."  ^  He  defined  free- 
will as  "  facultas  applicandi  se,  ad  gratiam."'^  In  these  views, 
which  of  necessity  involved  a  modification  of  the  doctrine  of  orig- 
inal sin,  Melancthon  was  followed  by  a  large  class  of  Lutheran 
theologians,  especially  those  of  Wittemberg.  The  theologians  of 
Jena,  with  one  prominent  exception,  Strigel,  adhered  to  the  old 
Lutheran  doctrine.  Besides  this  discussion  about  sin  and  grace, 
there  were  several  other  subjects  which  greatly  agitated  the  Lu- 
theran Church.  The  doctrine  concerning  the  person  of  Christ, 
the  nature  of  justification,  the  necessity  of  good  works,  toleration 
of  Papal  ceremonies  (the  adiaphora),  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 
were  debated  with  so  much  zeal  that  the  Protestant  rulers  were 
1  Loci  Com.  p.  90.  ^  Page  92. 


§  7.]  HISTORY    OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  721 

constrained  to  interfere.  Under  their  auspices,  Andreas  and 
Chemnitz,  assisted  by  other  theologians,  drew  up  what  is  known  as 
the  "  Form  of  Concord,"  in  which  with  great  clearness  and  skill 
they  reviewed  all  the  matters  in  dispute,  and  endeavoured  to 
adopt  a  mode  of  statement  which  should  secure  general  assent.  In 
this  they  were  not  disappointed.  The  Form  of  Concord  was  so 
generally  adopted  that  it  received  full  symbolical  authority,  and 
has  ever  since  been  regarded  as  the  standard  of  orthodoxy  among 
the  Lutherans.^ 

As  to  original  sin,  and  the  consequent  utter  inability  of  man  to 
any  spiritual  good,  the  doctrine  of  Luther  was  retained  in  its  integ- 
rity. Luther  had  said  in  his  book,  "  De  Servo  Arbitrio,"  ^  "  Ad- 
monitos  velim  liberi  arbitrii  tutores,  ut  sciant,  sese  esse  abnegatores 
Christi  dum  asserunt  liberum  arbitrium.  Nam  si  meo  studio  gra- 
tiam  Dei  obtineo,  quid  opus  est  Christi  gratia  pro  mea  gratia 
accipienda  ?  "  "  Humiliari  penitus  non  potest  homo,  donee  sciat, 
prorsus  extra  suas  vires,  studia,  voluntatem,  opera,  omnino  ex 
alterlus  arbitrio,  consilio,  voluntate,  opere  suam  pendere  salutem, 
nempe  Dei  solius."  ^  On  this  point  the  "  Form  of  Concord " 
says,  inter  alia,  "  Credimus,  quantum  abest,  ut  corpus  mortuum 
seipsum  vivificare  atque  sibi  ipsi  corporalem  vitam  restituere  pos- 
sit,  tantum  abesse,  ut  homo,  qui  ratione  peccati  spiritualiter  mor- 
tuus  est,  seipsum  in  vitam  spiritualem  revocandi  ullam  facultatem 
habeat."  ^  Of  course,  if  such  be  the  state  of  the  natural  man, 
there  can  be  no  cooperation  on  the  part  of  the  sinner  in  the  work 
of  regeneration.  This  Symbol,  therefore,  says,  "  Antequam  homo 
per  Spiritum  Sanctum  illuminatur,  convertitur,  regeneratur  et  tra- 
hitur,  ex  sese  et  propriis  naturalibus  suis  viribus  in  rebus  spiritual- 
ibus  et  ad  conversionem  aut  regenerationem  suam,  nihil  inchoare 
operari,  aut  cooperari  potest,  nee  plus,  quam  lapis,  truncus,  aut  li- 
mus."  ^  Again,  "  Quamvis  renati  etiam  in  hac  vita  eousque  pro- 
grediantur,  ut  bonnm  velint  eoque  delectentur,  et  bene  agere 
atque  in  pietate  proficere  studeant :  tamen  hoc  ipsum  non  a  nos- 
tra voluntate  aut  a  viribus  nostris  proficiscitur,  sed  Spiritus  Sanctus 
operatur  in  nobis  illud  velle  et  perficere."  ^ 

If  original  sin  involves  spiritual  death,  and  spiritual  death  im- 

1  The  Form  of  Concord  consists  of  two  parts;  the  first  is  called  the  Epitome  and  contains 
a  brief  statement  of  the  several  articles  of  faith  and  of  the  opposing  errors;  and  the  second 
is  the  Solvla  Dectarnlio  or  more  extended  exhibition  and  vindication  of  the  doctrines  taught. 
The  Epitome  itself  occupies  tifty  pages  in  Hase's  edition  of  the  Libri  SymboUci  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church. 

2  HW/ts,edit.  Wittenberg  (Latin),  1546,  vol.  ii.  p.  522.  3  ibid.  p.  467,  b. 

4  Epitome,  ir.  3;  Hase,  Libri  SymboUci,  3d  edit.  Leipzig,  1836,  p.  579. 

5  n.  24;  Hase,  p.  662.  6  „.  39;  jbid.  p.  666. 
VOL.  II.                             46 


722  PART  m.   Ch.  XIV.— vocation. 

plies  utter  inability  to  spiritual  good,  and  to  all  cooperation  in  the 
work  of  regeneration,  it  follows  that  regeneration  is  exclusively 
the  work  of  the  Spirit,  in  which  the  subject  is  entirely  passive. 
This,  also,  the  "  Form  of  Concord  "  admits.  "  Item,  quod  D. 
Lutherus  scripsit,  hominis  voluntatem  in  conversione  pure  passive 
se  habere  :  id  recte  et  dextere  est  accipiendum,  videlicet  respectu 
divinae  gratiae  in  accendendis  novis  motibus,  hoc  est,  de  eo  intelligi 
oportet,  quando  Spiritus  Dei  per  verbum  auditum,  aut  per  usum 
sacramentorum  hominis  voluntatem  aggreditur,  et  conversionem 
atque  regenerationem  in  homine  operatur.  Postquam  enim  Spiri- 
tus Sanctus  hoc  ipsum  jam  operatus  est  atque  effecit,  hominisque 
voluntatem  sola  sua  divina  virtute  et  operatione  immutavit  atque 
renovavit :  tunc  revera  hominis  nova  ilia  voluntas  instrumentum 
est  et  organon  Dei  Spiritus  Sancti,  ut  ea  non  modo  gratiam  ap- 
prehendat,  varum  etiam  in  operibus  sequentibus  Spiritui  Sancto 
cooperetur."  ^ 

But  if  the  reason  why  any  man  is  regenerated  is  not  that  he 
yields  of  his  own  will  to  the  grace  of  God,  or  that  he  cooperates 
with  it,  but.  simply  that  God  gives  him  a  new  heart,  then  it 
would  seem  to  follow  that  God  saves  some  and  not  others  of  the 
fallen  race  of  men,  of  his  own  good  pleasure.  In  other  words,  it 
follows  that  election  to  eternal  life  is  not  founded  in  anything  in  us, 
but  solely  in  the  will  or  purpose  of  God.  This  conclusion  the 
"  Form  of  Concord  "  admits,  so  far  as  the  saved  are  concerned.  It 
teaches  (1)  That  predestination  has  reference  only  to  the  saved. 
That  God  predestinates  no  one  either  to  sin  or  to  eternal  death. 
(2.)  That  the  election  of  some  persons  to  salvation  is  not  for  any- 
thing good  in  them,  but  solely  of  the  mercy  or  grace  of  God. 
(3.)  That  predestination  to  life  is  the  cause  of  salvation.  That  is, 
it  is  because  God  from  eternity  purposed  to  save  certain  individu- 
als of  the  human  family,  that  they  are  saved.  (4.)  That  this 
predestination  or  election  renders  the  salvation  of  the  elect  cer- 
tain. Should  they  for  a  time  fall  away,  their  election  secures  their 
restoration  to  a  state  of  grace.  The  following  passages  contain 
the  avowal  of  these  several  principles.  "  Praedestinatio,  seu 
aeterna  Dei  electio,  tantum  ad  bonos  et  dilectos  filios  Dei  pertinet ; 
et  haec  est  causa  ipsorum  salutis.  Etenim  eorum  salutem  procurat, 
et  ea,  quae  ad  ipsam  pertinent,  disponit.  Super  banc  Dei  praedes- 
tinationem  salus  nostra  ita  fundata  est,  ut  inferorum  portae  earn 
evertere  nequeant."  ^     "  Hac  pia  doctrina  et  declaratione  articuli 

1  Epitome  ii.  18;  Ibid.  pp.  582,  583. 

3  Formula  Cmicurdim,  Epitome,  xi.  5 ;  Hase,  p.  618. 


§  7.]  HISTORY    OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  723 

de  aeterna  et  salvifica  electorum  filiorum  Dei  praedestinatione  Deo 
gloria  sua  omnis  solide  tribuitur,  quod  videlicet  mera  et  gratuita 
misericordia  in  Christo  (absque  omnibus  nostris  meritis  aut  bonis 
operibus)  salvos  nos  faciat,  secundum  voluntatis  suae  propositum. 

Eph.  i.  5  sq Falsum  igitur  est  et  cum  verbo  Dei  pugnat, 

cum  docetur,  quod  non  sola  Dei  misericordia,  et  unicum  sanctissi- 
mum  Christi  meritum,  verum  etiam  aliquid  in  nobis  causa  sit  elec- 
tionis  divinsB,  propter  quod  nos  Deus  ad  vitam  aeternam  prasdesti- 
naverit.  Non  enim  tantum  antequam  aliquid  boni  faceremus, 
verum  etiam  priusquam  nasceremur,  imo  ante  jacta  fundamenta 
mundi  elegit  nos  Deus  in  Christo.  Ut  secundum  electionem  pro- 
positum Dei  maneret,  non  ex  operibus,  sed  ex  vocante,  dictum  est 
ei :  Major  serviet  minori.     Rom.  9,  [11.]  "  ^ 

As  to  the  perseverance  of  the  saints,  it  is  said,  "  Cum  etiam 
electio  nostra  ad  vitam  aeternam  non  virtutibus  aut  justitia  nostra, 
sed  solo  Christi  raerito,  et  benigna  coelestis  Patris  voluntate  nita- 
tur,  qui  seipsum  negare  non  potest  (cum  in  voluntate  et  essentia 
sua  sit  immutabilis),  earn  ob  causam,  quando  fihi  ipsius  obedien- 
tiam  non  praestant,  sed  in  peccata  labuntur,  per  verbum  eos  ad 
poenitentiam  revocat,  et  Spiritus  Sanctus  per  verbum  vult  in  iis  effi- 
cax  esse,  ut  in  viam  redeant,  et  vitam  emendent."  ^  The  older 
Lutheran  theologians  adhered  to  this  doctrine.  Hutter  ^  asks, 
"  Siccine  ergo  electi  non  possunt  excidere  gratia  Dei  ?  Immo 
vero  possunt  ;  sed  ita,  \it  per  veram  poenitentiam  et  fidem  sese 
rursus  virtute  Spiritus  Sancti  ad  Deum  convertant  et  ad  vitam  re- 
deant.    Nisi  enim  redirent,  non  essent  in  numero  electorum." 

But  if  all  men  since  the  fall  are  in  a  state  of  spiritual  death,  ut- 
terly unable  to  do  anything  to  secure  the  grace  of  God,  or  to  give 
that  grace,  when  offered,  a  saving  effect  ;  if  election  is  not  a  mere 
general  purpose  to  save  those  who  believe,  but  a  purpose  to  save 
particular  individuals ;  if  that  purpose  is  of  God's  mere  good  pleas- 
ure, and  not  founded  upon  anything  actual  or  foreseen  in  its  ob- 
jects ;  if,  moreover,  it  is  the  cause  of  salvation,  and  renders  the 
salvation  of  its  objects  certain  ;  then  it  would  seem  inevitably  to 
follow,  that  although  the  judicial  reason  why  the  non-elect  fail  of 
salvation  is  their  own  sin,  yet  the  reason  why  they,  and  not  oth- 
ers equally  guilty  are  left  to  suffer  the  penalty  of  their  sins,  is  to 
be  found  in  the  sovereignty  of  God.  "  Even  so.  Father  ;  for  so  it 
seemed  good  in  thy  sight."  This,  however,  the  Lutherans  of 
that  day  could  not  admit ;  and  therefore,  with  what  Guoricke  calls 

1  XI.  Ixxxvii.,  Ixxxviii.,  Hase,  p.  821.  2  xi.  Ixxv;  Ibid.  p.  817. 

8  ComjJtndium  Theol.  loc.  1.3,  qu.  30. 


724  PART  III.     Ch.   XIV.  —  vocation. 

"  gottlich  nothwendiger  Verstandes-Inconsequenz  "  ^  (a  divinely 
necessitated  logical  inconsistency),  they  rejected  that  consequence 
of  their  avowed  principles.  In  this  illogical  position  the  theologi- 
ans of  the  Lutheran  Church  could  not  remain,  and  therefore,  since 
Gerhard  (who  died  a.  d.  1637),  they  have  adopted  the  more  con- 
sistent scheme  which  has  already  been  exhibited.  According  to  that 
scheme,  God  sincerely  not  only  desires,  but  purposes  the  salvation 
of  all  men  ;  He  makes  abundant  provision  for  the  salvation  of  all  ; 
sends  grace  and  truth  to  all,  which  grace  and  truth  become  cer- 
tainly efficacious,  unless  resisted.  Those  whom  God  foresees  will 
not  resist.  He  elects  to  eternal  life ;  those  whom  He  foresees  will 
resist  unto  the  end,  He  foreordains  to  eternal  death. 

Reformed  Church. 

The  experience  of  the  Reformed  Church  conformed  to  that  of 
the  Lutheran,  in  so  far  as  that  the  same  defection  from  the  original 
confessional  doctrines  occurred  in  both.  As  the  followers  of  Me- 
lancthon  adopted  the  theory  of  synergism,  or  of  the  cooperation  of 
the  sinner  in  his  own  regeneration,  on  which  cooperation  his  fate  de- 
pended, substantially  the  same  view  was  adopted  by  the  Remon- 
strants or  Arminians  within  the  pale  of  the  Reformed  Church. 
The  departure  of  the  Remonstrants  from  the  principles  of  the 
Reformation,  as  to  original  sin,  grace,  ability,  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ,  justification  and  faith,  was  far  more  serious  than  that  which 
occurred  among  the  Lutherans.  Another  marked  difference  be- 
tween the  two  cases  is,  that  the  synergistic  controversy  resulted  in 
a  modification  of  the  Lutheran  scheme  of  doctrine  which  became 
general  and  permanent ;  whereas  the  Remonstrants  or  Arminians 
formed  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  organization  outside  of  the  Reformed 
churches  which  adhered  to  the  Reformed  faith.  The  peculiar  doc- 
trines of  the  Remonstrants,  both  as  to  sin  and  as  to  grace,  were 
stated  above ;  ^  and  also  those  of  the  Evangelical  or  Wesleyan  Armin- 
ians.^  The  decision  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  condemnatory  of  the  Ar- 
minian  doctrines,  was  unanimous.  That  Synod  included  delegates 
from  all  the  Reformed  churches  except  that  of  France,  whose  del- 
egates were  prevented  from  attending  by  an  order  from  the  King. 
The  established  churches  of  England  and  Scotland,  as  well  as 
those  of  Holland,  Germany,  and  Switzerland  were  represented. 
The  judgment  of  the  Synod  was  therefore  the  judgment  of  the 
Reformed  Church.     In  accordance   with  the  acknowledged  Sym- 

1  Kirckengeschichte,  Per.  vii.  B.  cap.  ii.  §  203,  6th  edit.  Leipzig,  1846,  vol.  iii.  p.  419. 
a  Pages  327,  328.  8  Pages  329,  330. 


§7.]  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE.  725 

bols  of  that  Church,  the  Synod  decided,  (1.)  That  "  all  mankind 
sinned  in  Adam  and  became  exposed  to  the  curse  and  eternal 
death.  That  God  would  have  done  no  injustice  to  any  one,  if  He 
had  determined  to  leave  the  whole  human  race  under  sin  and  the 
curse."  ^  (2.)  "  That  God  out  of  the  human  race,  fallen  by  their 
fault  into  sin  and  destruction,  according  to  the  most  free  good 
pleasure  of  his  own  will,  and  of  mere  grace,  chose  a  certain  num- 
ber of  men,  neither  better  nor  worthier  than  others,  ....  to 
salvation  in  Christ."  2  (3.)  That  this  decree  to  elect  "a  certain 
number"  to  eternal  life,  involves  of  necessity  and  according  to  the 
teaching  of  Scripture,  a  purpose  to  pass  by,  and  leave  those  not 
elected  to  suffer  the  just  punishment  of  their  sins.^  (4.)  That 
God  out  of  infinite  and  unmerited  love  sent  his  Son  "  efficacious- 
ly to  redeem  "  all  those  "  who  were  from  eternity  chosen  unto 
salvation  and  given  to  Him  by  the  Father."  *  (5.)  That  Christ 
makes  satisfaction  for  us,  being  "  made  sin  and  a  curse  upon  the 
cross  for  us,  or  in  our  stead,"  and  that  "  this  death  of  the  Son  of 
God  is  a  single  and  most  perfect  sacrifice  and  satisfaction  for  sins, 
of  infinite  value  and  price  abundantly  sufficient  to  expiate  the  sins 
of  the  whole  world."  ^  "  The  promise  of  the  Gospel  is,  that  who- 
soever believeth  in  Christ  crucified  shall  not  perish,  but  have 
eternal  life.  "Which  promise  ought  to  be  announced  and  proposed, 
promiscuously  and  indiscriminately,  to  all  nations  and  men  to 
whom  God,  in  his  good  pleasure,  hath  sent  the  Gospel,  with  the 
command  to  repent  and  believe."  ^  "  But  because  many  who  are 
called  by  the  Gospel  do  not  repent,  nor  believe  in  Christ,  but  per- 
ish in  unbelief;  this  doth  not  arise  from  defect  or  insufficiency  of 
the  sacrifice  offered  by  Christ  upon  the  cross,  but  from  their  own 
fault."  ''  This  general  invitation  or  call  is  perfectly  sincere  on  the 
part  of  God  ;  "  for  sincerely  and  most  truly  God  shows  in  his 
Word  what  is  pleasing  to  Him  ;  namely,  that  they  who  are  called 
should  come  to  Him.  And  He  sincerely  promises  to  all  who 
come  to  Him,  and  believe,  the  peace  of  their  souls  and  eternal 
life."  ^  That  some  do  come  and  are  converted,  "  is  not  to  be  as- 
cribed to  man,  as  if  he  distinguished  himself  by  free-will  from 
others  furnished  with  equal  or  sufficient  grace  for  faith  and  conver- 
sion (which  the  proud  heresy  of  Pelagius  states)  but  to  God,  who, 
as  He  chose  his  own  people  in  Christ  from  eternity,  so  He  effec- 
tually calls  them  in  time."^    "  This  regeneration  is  declared  in  the 

1  Chapter  i.  art.  1.  2  Chapter  i.  art.  7.  8  Chapter  i.  art.  15. 

*  Chapter  ii.  art.  8.  5  Chapter  ii.  art.  3.  6  Chapter  ii.  art.  5. 

7  Chapter  ii.  art.  6.  s  Chapter  iii.  art.  9.  9  Chapter  iii.  art.  10. 


726  PART  in.   Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

Scriptures  to  be  a  new  creation,  a  resurrection  from  the  dead,  a 
giving  of  life  which  God  without  us  (that  is,  without  our  concur- 
rence) worketh  in  us.  And  this  is  Jbj  no  means  effected  by  the 
doctrine  alone  sounding  without,  by  moral  suasion,  or  by  such  a 
mode  of  operation,  that  after  the  operation  of  God  (as  far  as  He 
is  concerned)  it  should  remain  in  the  power  of  man,  to  be  regen- 
erated or  not  regenerated,  converted  or  not  converted  ;  but  it  is 
manifestly  an  operation  supernatural,  at  the  same  time  most  pow- 
erful, most  sweet,  wonderful,  secret,  ineffable  in  its  power,  accord- 
ing to  Scripture  (which  is  inspired  by  the  author  of  this  operation) 
not  less  than,  or  inferior  to,  creation,  or  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead."  ^  "  This  grace  God  owes  to  no  man."  He  who  receives 
it  must  render  everlasting  thanks ;  he  who  does  not  receive  it, 
either  cares  not  for  spiritual  things,  and  rests  satisfied  with  himself, 
or,  secure,  he  vainly  boasts  that  he  has  that  which  he  has  not.^ 
"  This  divine  grace  of  regeneration  does  not  act  upon  men  like 
stocks  and  trees,  or  take  away  the  properties  of  his  will,  or  vio- 
lently compel  it  while  unwilling ;  but  it  spiritually  quickens  (vivi- 
fies), heals,  corrects,  and  sweetly,  and  at  the  same  time  powerfully 
inclines  it."  ^  "  Those  whom  God,  according  to  his  purpose,  calleth 
to  fellowship  of  his  Son  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  regenerates  by 
his  Holy  Spirit,  He  indeed  sets  free  from  the  dominion  and  slavery 
of  sin,  but  not  entirely  in  this  life  from  the  flesh  and  the  body  of 
sin."*  Because  of  these  remains  of  sin,  believers,  if" left  to  them- 
selves, would  fall  away,  "  but  God  is  faithful,  who  confirms  them  in 
the  grace  once  mercifully  conferred  upon  them,  and  powerfully 
preserves  them  in  the  same  even  unto  the  end."  ^ 

Hypothetical  Universalism. 

A  class  of  theologians  in  the  Reformed  Church  who  did  not 
agree  with  the  Remonstrants  against  whom  the  decisions  of  the 
Synod  of  Dort,  sustained  by  all  branches  of  the  Reformed  body, 
were  directed,  were  still  unable  to  side  with  the  great  mass  of  their 
brethren.  The  most  distinguished  of  these  theologians  were  Amy- 
raut,  La  Place,  and  Cappellus.  Their  views  have  already  been 
briefly  stated  in  the  sections  treating  of  mediate  imputation ;  and  of 
the  order  of  decrees  and  of  the  design  of  redemption.  These  de- 
partures from  the  accepted  doctrines  of  the  Reformed  Church  pro- 
duced protracted  agitation,  not  in  France  only  but  also  in  Holland 

1  Chapter  iii.  art.  12.  2  Chapter  iii.  art.  15. 

8  Chapter  iii.  art.  6.  4  Chapter  v.  art.  1. 

6  Chapter  v.  art.  3.     See  Niemeyer,  CoUeclio  Confessionum,  Leipzig,  1840,  pp.  69-3-716. 


§  7,]  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE.  727 

and  Switzerland.  The  professors  of  the  University  of  Leyden, 
Andreas  Rivet  and  Frederick  Spanheim,  were  especially  prominent 
among  the  opposers  of  the  innovations  of  the  French  theologians. 
The  clergy  of  Geneva  drew  up  a  protest  in  the  form  of  a  Conseu" 
sus  of  the  Helvetic  Churches  which  received  symbolical  author- 
ity. The  doctrines  against  which  this  protest  was  directed  are, 
(1.)  That  God,  out  of  general  benevolence  towards  men,  and  not 
out  of  special  love  to  his  chosen  people,  determined  to  redeem  all 
mankind,  provided  they  should  repent  and  believe  on  the  appointed 
Redeemer.  Hence  the  theory  was  called  hypothetical  universal- 
ism.  (2.)  That  the  death  or  work  of  Christ  had  no  special  refer- 
ence to  his  own  people ;  it  rendered  the  salvation  of  no  man  cer- 
tain, but  the  salvation  of  all  men  possible.  (3.)  As  the  call  of 
the  gospel  is  directed  to  all  men,  all  have  the  power  to  repent  and 
believe.  (4.)  God  foreseeing  that  none,  if  left  to  themselves, 
would  repent,  determines  of  his  own  good  pleasure  to  give  saving 
grace  to  some  and  not  to  others.  This  is  the  principal  distinguish- 
ing feature  between  the  theory  of  these  French  theologians  and  of 
the  Semi-Pelagians  and  Remonstrants.  The  former  admit  the 
sovereignty  of  God  in  election  ;  the  latter  do  not. 

This  system  necessitates  a  thorough  change  in  the  related  doc- 
trines of  the  gospel.  If  fallen  men  have  power  to  repent  and  be- 
lieve, then  original  sin  (subjectively  considered)  does  not  involve 
absolute  spiritual  death.  If  this  be  so,  then  mankind  are  not  sub- 
ject to  the  death  threatened  to  Adam.  Tlierefore,  there  is  no 
immediate  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity.  As  they 
derive  a  polluted  nature  from  him,  which  is  the  ground  of  the  dis- 
pleasure of  God,  they  may  so  far  be  said  to  share  in  his  sin.  This 
is  mediate  imputation.  Again,  if  the  death  of  Christ  does  not 
render  certain  the  salvation  of  his  people,  then  it  was  not  vicarious 
in  the  proper  sense  of  that  word  ;  nor  did  He  die  as  a  substitute. 
His  satisfaction  assumes  of  necessity  the  character  of  a  general 
display,  a  didactic  exhibition  of  truth.  At  least  this  is  the  logical 
tendency,  and  the  actual  historical  consequence  of  the  theory. 
Moreover,  if  Christ  did  not  act  as  the  substitute  and  representative 
of  his  people,  there  is  no  ground  for  the  imputation  of  his  right- 
eousness to  them.  The  French  theologians,  therefore,  denied  that 
his  active  obedience  is  tlius  imputed  to  believers.  The  merit  of 
his  death  may  be  said  to  be  thus  imputed  as  it  is  the  ground  of  the 
forgiveness  of  sin.  This  of  course  destroys  the  idea  of  justification 
by  merging  it  into  an  executive  act  of  pardon.  Moreover,  the 
principles  on  which  this  theory  is  founded,  require  that  as  every 


728  PART  m.   Ch.  XIV.— vocation. 

other  provision  of  the  gospel  is  general  and  universal,  so  also  the 
call  must  be.  But  as  it  is  undeniable  that  neither  the  written 
word  nor  the  preached  gospel  has  extended  to  all  men,  it  must  be 
assumed  that  the  revelation  of  God  made  in  his  works,  in  his  prov- 
idence, and  in  the  constitution  of  man,  is  adequate  to  lead  men  to 
all  the  knowledge  necessary  to  salvation  ;  or,  that  the  supernatural 
teaching  and  guidance  of  the  Spirit  securing  such  knowledge  must 
be  granted  to  all  men.  It  is  too  obviously  inconsistent  and  unrea- 
sonable to  demand  that  redemption  must  be  universal,  and  ability 
universal  as  the  common  heritage  of  man,  and  yet  admit  that  the 
knowledge  of  that  redemption  and  of  what  sinners  are  required  to 
do  in  the  exercise  of  their  ability,  is  confined  to  comparatively  few. 
The  "  Formula  Consensus  Helvetica,"  therefore,  includes  in  its  pro- 
test the  doctrine  of  those  "  qui  vocationem  ad  salutem  non  sola 
Evangelii  praedicatione,  sed  naturae  etiam  ac  Providentije  operibus, 
citra  ullum  exterius  prseconium  expediri  sentiunt,"  etc.^  It  is  not 
wonderful,  therefore,  that  this  diluted  form  of  Augustinianism 
should  be  distasteful  to  the  great  body  of  the  Reformed  Churches. 
It  was  rejected  universally  except  in  France,  where,  after  repeated 
acts  of  censure,  it  came  to  be  tolerated. 

Supernaturalism  and  Rationalism. 

The  departure  from  the  doctrines  of  the  church  standards  of  the 
Protestant  churches  began  early,  with  the  decline  of  vital  godli- 
ness. The  only  stable  foundation  for  truth  is  either  the  external 
authority  of  the  Church  tolerating  no  dissent,  or  the  inward  testi- 
mony of  the  Spirit,  the  unction  of  the  Holy  One  which  both 
teaches  and  convinces.  The  former  from  its  nature  can  secure 
only  apparent  conformity  or  the  assent  of  indifference.  Living 
faith  can  come  only  from  a  life-giving  source. 

The  first  great  change  was  effected  by  the  introduction  of  the 
Wolf-Leibnitzian  method  into  theology.  Wolf  assumed  that  all 
the  truths  of  religion,  even  its  highest  mysteries,  were  truths  of  the 
reason,  and  capable  of  being  demonstrated  to  the  reason.  This 
was  a  complete  revolution.  It  changed  the  foundation  of  faith 
from  the  testimony  of  God  in  his  Word  and  by  his  Spirit,  to  the 
testimony  of  our  own  feeble,  insignificant  reason.  No  wonder  that 
a  building  resting  on  such  a  foundation,  first  tottered,  and  then 
fell.  If  the  demonstration  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  from  the 
truths  of  the  reason  failed  to  convince,  the  doctrine  was  rejected. 
So  of  all  the  other  great  doctrines  of  revelation,  and  so  especially 

1  XX. :  Niemeyer,  Colhctio  Confessionum,  Leipzig,  1840,  p.  737. 


§  7.]  HISTORY   OF  THE  DOCTRINE.  729 

of  the  Scriptural  doctrines  of  sin  and  grace.  A  class  of  Rational- 
ists was  therefore  soon  formed ;  some  rejecting  everything  super- 
natural, all  prophecy,  immediate  revelation,  inspiration,  mu'acles, 
and  divine  influence  other  than  what  was  mediate  and  providential ; 
and  others,  while  admitting  a  supernatural  revelation  supernaturally 
authenticated,  still  maintained  that  the  truths  of  such  revelation 
were  only  those  of  natural  religion,  all  others  being  explained  away 
or  rejected  as  accommodations  to  the  modes  of  thinking  and  speak- 
ing in  past  ages.  This  change  was  of  course  gradual.  The  Ra- 
tionalists proper  soon  came  to  deny  any  supernatural  influence  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  conversion  of  men.  Being  Theists,  and 
admitting  that  God  exercises  a  providential  efficiency,  not  only  in 
the  external  world,  but  also  in  the  support  and  guidance  of  free 
agents,  —  an  efficiency  which  is  natural,  as  operating  in  accordance 
with  natural  laws,  they  referred  all  that  the  Scriptures  teach  and  all 
that  the  Church  teaches  of  the  operations  of  grace,  to  the  general 
head  of  providence.  God  does  no  more  and  no  less  in  the  conver- 
sion of  men  than  He  does  in  their  education,  and  in  furthering 
their  success  in  life,  or  in  causing  the  rain  to  fall  and  the  grass  to 
grow.  In  denying  the  Scriptural  account  of  the  fall  of  man,  the 
Rationalists  rejected  the  foundation  on  which  the  whole  Scriptural 
scheme  of  redemption  rested. 

The  Supernaturalists,  although  united  against  the  Rationalists, 
differed  very  much  among  themselves.  Some  stood  on  the  divid- 
ing line,  admitting  supernatural  intervention  on  the  part  of  God,  in 
re'^elation  and  in  grace,  not  because  asserted  in  the  Scriptures,  but 
because  consistent  with  reason,  and  because  probable  and  desirable. 
Thus  Bretschneider  says  in  reference  to  grace,  "  Reason  finds  the 
immediate  operation  of  God  on  the  souls  of  men  for  their  illumina- 
tion and  improvement,  not  only  possible,  but  probable.  As  God 
stands  in  connection  with  the  external  world,  and  in  virtue  of  his 
infinitely  perfect  life  constantly  operates  therein  ;  so  must  He  also 
stand  in  connection  with  the  moral  world,  or  there  could  be  no 
moral  government.  But  as  his  working  in  the  natural  world  ap- 
pears as  natural,  so  that  we  never  apprehend  his  supernatural  effi- 
ciency ;  thus  his  operation  in  the  moral  world  is  also  natural  con- 
formed to  psychological  laws,  so  that  we  are  never  conscious  of  his 
operation."  ^  This  divine  influence,  therefore,  he  says,  is  simply 
"moral."  "It  can  consist  onl}'^  in  this,  that  God,  through  the 
ideas  which  the  truth  awakens  in  the  soul,  rouses  it  to  decide  for 
the  good."  2 

1  rinndbuch  der  Dogmatik,  §  185,  3d  edit.  Leipzig,  1828,  vol.  ii.  p.  600. 

2  Ibid.  p.  604. 


730  PART  m.   Ch.  XIV.  —  vocation. 

Moras  1  makes  the  reformation  of  men  the  work  of  God  in  so  far 
that  God  sustains  "  nostrum  in  usu  doctrinae  studium,"  so  that  it  is 
successful.  He  attributes  to  man  the  abihty  to  devote  himself  to 
this  study,  and  censures  those  who  undertake  to  determine,  "  quid 
et  quantum  Deus  atque  homo  faciant,  ubi  aut  quando  Deus  aut 
homo  incipiat,  seu  desinat,  Deus  solus  agat,  seu  homo  aliquid  con- 
ferat." 

J.  L.  Z.  Junkheim^  taught  that  the  work  of  God  in  conversion 
is  supernatural,  not  because  He  acts  immediately,  but  because  the 
means  through  which  He  works,  his  Word  as  a  divine  revelation, 
and  the  effect  are  supernatural.  The  modus  agendi  is  purely  nat- 
ural, and  the  reformation  only  so  far  exceeds  the  natural  power  of 
man,  as  that  the  truth  by  which  it  is  effected  was  not  discovered 
by  man,  but  revealed  by  God  ;  and  so  far  as  this  revealed  truth 
has  more  power  than  the  thoughts  or  speculations  of  men. 

Michaehs  ^  and  Doderlein  *  took  the  same  ground,  and  denied 
any  supernatural  influence  in  the  work  of  conversion.  Others 
taught  that  the  grace  of  God  is  universal,  and  that  by  grace  is  to 
be  understood  natural  knowledge,  and  the  helps  to  virtue,  of  which 
men  have  the  opportunity  and  power  to  avail  themselves.  Eber- 
hard,^  Henke,  Eckermann,  and  Wegscheider  ^  acknowledge  only 
a  general  agency  of  God  in  conversion,  in  that  He  has  written  the 
moral  law  on  the  hearts  of  men,  given  them  the  power  of  self-ref- 
ormation, and  is  the  author  of  Christianity,  and  in  his  providence 
gives  them  the  occasion  and  inducements  to  virtuous  action.  Am- 
mon '^  says  grace  consists  in  "  procuratione  institutionis  salutaris, 
excitatione  per  exempla  virtutis  illustria,  paupertate,  calamitatibus, 
admonitionibus  amicorum  et  inimicorum,"  etc.^  There  was  a  class 
of  theologians  during  this  period  to  which  Storr,  Flatt,  and  Knapp 
belonged,  who  opposed  these  open  denials  of  the  principles,  not  only 
of  Protestant,  but  also  of  Catholic  Christianity,  but  who  were 
nevertheless  far  below  the  standard  of  the  Reformation. 

To  this  state  of  extreme  attenuation  was  the  theology  of  the 
Reformers  reduced,  when  the  introduction  of  the  speculative,  tran- 
scendental, or  pantheistic  philosophy  effected  an  entire  revolution, 
which  even  such  writers  as  Dorner  are  accustomed  to  call  "  the 

1  Epitome,  p.  229. 

2  Von  detn  Utbernatiirlichen  in  den  Gnadenunrkungen,  Erlangen,  1775. 

3  £)t,gm.  p.  180. 

<  Imtttlutio  Theologi  Christiani,  edit.  Nuremberg  and  Altorf,  1797,  vol.  II.  p.  698. 

5  Apol.  (les  Siikrat,  2  Thl.  p.  .387. 

6  Jnstiltiliones  Theohgia,  5th  edit.  Halle,  1826,  §  152.  ''  Stmmn,  §  132. 

8  See  Bretschneider,  vol.  ii.  p.  615,  616.  Dorner's  Geschichte  der  protesiantischen  Tkeolo- 
gie. 


§  7.]  HISTORY   OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  731 

regeneration  of  theology."  The  leading  principle  of  this  philoso- 
phy, in  all  its  phases,  is  Monism,  the  denial  of  all  real  dualism  be- 
tween God  and  man.  If  man  is  only  the  modus  existendi  of  God, 
then  of  course  there  is  an  end  of  all  questions  about  sin  and  grace. 
Sin  can  only  be  imperfect  development,  and  man's  activity  being 
only  a  form  of  the  agency  of  God,  there  is  no  place  for  what  the 
Church  means  by  grace.  All  resolves  itself  into  the  Hegelian 
dictum,  "  What  God  does  I  do,  and  what  I  do  God  does."  "  Der 
menschliche  Wille  eine  Wirkungsform  des  gottlichen  Willens 
....  ist."i 

The  change  introduced  by  the  new  philosophy  was  pervading. 
Even  those  who  did  not  adopt  it  in  its  anti-christian  or  anti-theistic 
results,  had  all  their  modes  of  thought  and  expression  modified 
by  its  influence.  The  views  thus  induced,  of  the  nature  of  God, 
of  his  relation  to  the  world,  of  the  nature  or  constitution  of  man, 
of  the  person  of  Christ,  and  of  the  method  of  redemption,  were  so 
diverse  from  those  previously  adopted,  that  the  new  theology, 
whether  designated  as  mystic  or  speculative,  has  few  points  of  con- 
tact with  the  systems  previously  adopted.  Its  whole  nomenclature 
is  changed,  so  that  the  productions  of  the  writers  of  this  class  can- 
not be  understood  without  some  previous  training.  Of  course  it 
is  out  of  the  question  to  class  these  theologians,  who  differ  greatly 
among  themselves,  under  the  old  categories.  To  say  that  they 
were  Pelagian,  Semi-Pelagian,  Tridentine,  Lutheran,  Reformed, 
or  Arminian,  would  be  absurd.  Schleiermacher,  Ullmann,  Nitzsch, 
Twesten,  Martensen,  Lange,  Liebner,  Dorner,  Schoeberlein,  De- 
litzsch,  and  many  others,  are  believers  in  the  divine  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  and  are  able,  learned,  and  zealous  in  the  support  of  the 
truth  as  they  apprehend  it ;  and  yet,  in  their  theological  discus- 
sions, their  whole  mode  of  thinking,  and  their  method  of  present- 
ing the  doctrines  of  Scripture,  are  so  controlled  by  their  philosophy, 
that  to  a  great  degree,  and  to  a  degree  much  greater  in  some  cases 
than  in  others,  their  writings  have  the  aspect  of  philosophical  dis- 
quisitions, and  not  of  exhibitions  of  Scriptural  doctrines.^  With 
these  writers  as  a  class,  all  questions  concerning  grace,  are  merged 
into  the  more  comprehensive  questions  of  the  nature  of  God,  his 

1  See  Hase's  Dogmalik,  §  177,  3d  edit.  Leipzig,  1842,  p.  305. 

2  It  is  characteristic  of  these  writers,  however,  that  some  of  their  productions  are  simple 
and  Biblical,  while  others  are  in  the  hij^hest  degree  mj'stical  and  obscure.  Lange's  Ccnn- 
menlaries,  for  example,  are  for  the  most  part  intelligible  enough,  but  his  Philosopkische 
Dogmatik  none  but  a  German,  native  or  naturalized,  can  understand.  It  would  be  difficult 
to  name  a  book  more  replete  with  sound  Scriptural  doctrine,  clearly  stated,  than  Delitzsch'a 
Commenlar  zum  Brief e  an  die  Hebi-der,  with  its  archeological  and  doctrinal  Excursus  on  sac- 
rifices and  the  atonement,  and  yet  at  other  times  he  writes  likes  a  Cabalist. 


732  PART  m.   Ch.  XIV.— vocation. 

relation  to  the  world,  the  person  of  Christ,  and  the  way  in  which 
his  life  becomes  the  life  of  his  people.  In  many  cases,  indeed,  the 
person,  and  the  special  work  of  the  Spirit,  are  altogether  ignored. 
We  are  redeemed  because  the  divine  and  human  are  united  in 
Christ,  and  we  derive  from  Him,  through  the  Church  and  the  sac- 
raments, the  power  of  this  divine-human  life. 

All  the  topics  connected  with  the  great  doctrines  of  sin  and 
grace  have  been  frequently  and  earnestly  debated  by  the  theolog- 
ical writers  of  our  own  country.  But  into  these  debates  no  new 
questions  have  entered.  The  principles  involved  in  these  contro- 
versies are  the  same  as  those  involved  in  the  earlier  conflicts  in  the 
Church.  Even  the  system  of  Dr.  Emmons,  which  has  most  ap- 
pearance of  originality,  is  the  doctrine  of  a  continued  creation 
pushed  to  its  legitimate  consequences,  combined  with  certain  incon- 
gruous elements  derived  from  other  sources.  With  Dr.  Emmons 
God  is  the  only  cause ;  second  causes  (so  called),  whether  material 
or  mental,  have  no  efficiency.  God  creates  everything  at  every 
moment ;  all  volitions  or  mental  states,  as  well  as  all  things  exter- 
nal. He  denied  all  substance  out  of  God;  identity  consists  in  a 
sameness  and  continuity  of  phenomena  or  effects  connected  by 
the  will  or  constitution  of  God.  The  moral  and  religious  convic- 
tions of  this  distinguished  man  were  too  stroncr  to  allow  him  to 
draw  the  legitimate  conclusions  from  his  theory  of  divine  efficiency. 
He  therefore  maintained  that  men's  volitions  are  free,  although 
created  by  God  ;  and  that  they  are  morally  good  or  evil,  determin- 
ing character  and  involving  responsibility,  although  they  are  the 
acts  of  God,  or  the  product  of  his  creative  power.  This  is  very 
different  from  the  Church  doctrine  of  original  or  concreated  right- 
eousness, and  of  infused  grace.  The  Bible  does  indeed  teach  that 
God  created  man  in  his  own  image  in  knowledge,  righteousness, 
and  true  holiness.  But  this  holiness  was  a  permanent  state  of 
mind  ;  the  character  of  a  person,  a  suppositum^  or  individual  sub- 
sistence ;  and  not  the  character  of  an  act  which  is  good  or  bad  ac- 
cording to  the  motives  by  which  it  is  determined.  If  God  creates 
holy  acts,  He  is  a  Holy  Being,  but  the  acts  have  no  moral  charac- 
ter apart  from  their  efficient  cause  or  author.  Faith  and  repent- 
ance are  due  to  the  power  of  God,  they  are  his  gifts ;  but  they  are 
truly  our  acts,  and  not  God's.  They  are  his  gifts,  because  it  is 
under  his  gracious  influence  we  are  induced  to  repent  and  believe. 
There  can  be  no  moral  character  pertaining  to  an  act  which  does 
not  beloncr  to  the  ajrent. 


The  Great  Theological  Work  of  the  Age, 

Dr.  Hodge's  Theology. 

-  —  ^  -♦-  *    

igslpnifltir  ^iFologg, 

By  CHARLES  HODGE,  D.D,  LLD., 

of  Princeton  Theological  Seminary. 

To  be  completed  iti  three  volumes  8vo.      Tinted  paper.     Price  per  vol.,  in  cloth,  !|4.5o. 

In  these  volumes  are  comprised  the  results  of  the  life-long  labors  and  investigations  of  one  of  the 
most  eminent  theologians  of  the  age.  The  work  covers  the  ground  usually  occupied  by  treatises  on 
Systematic  Theology,  and  adopts  the  commonly  received  divisions  of  the  subject, — THEOLOGY, 
Vol.  I.  ;  ANTHROPOLOGY,  Vol.  H.  ;  SOTERIOLOGY  AND  ESCHATOLOGY,  Vol.  HL 

The  INTRODUCTION  is  devoted  to  the  consideration  of  preliminary  matters,  such  as  Method,  or 
the  principles  which  should  guide  the  student  of  Theology,  and  the  different  theories  as  to  the  source 
and  standard  of  our  knowledge  of  divine  things.  Rationalism,  Mysticism,  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine 
of  the  Rule  of  Faith,  and  the  Protestant  doctrine  on  that  subject. 

The  department  of  THEOLOGY  proper  includes  the  orig-.n  of  the  Idea  of  God,  the  Being  of  God, 
the  Anti-Theistic  systems  of  Atheism,  Polytheism,  Materialism,  and  Par.theism ;  the  Nature  of  God. 
the  Divine  Attributes,  the  Doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ; 
the  Decrees  of  God,  Creation,  Providence,  and  Miracles. 

The  department  of  ANTHROPOLOGY  includes  the  Nature,  Origin,  and  Antiquity  of  Man,  his 
Primitive  State  and  Probation  ;  the  Fall ;  the  Effect  of  Adam's  sin  upon  himself  and  upon  his  Posterity  ; 
the  Nature  of  Sin ;   the  Different  Philosophical  and  Theological  Theories  on  that  subject. 

SOTERIOLOGY  includes  the  Plan  or  Purpose  of  God  in  reference  to  the  Salvation  of  Man;  the 
Person  and  Work  of  the  Redeemer  ;  his  Offices  as  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King ;  the  Work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  applying  the  redemption  purchased  by  Christ ;  Common  and  Efficacious  Grace,  Regeneration, 
Faith,  Justification,  Sanctification,  the  Law  or  Rule  of  Life,  and  the  means  of  Gi-ace. 

ESCHATOLOGY  includes  the  State  of  the  Soul  after  Death;  the  Second  Coming  of  Christ ;  the 
Resurrection  of  the  Body;  the  General  Judgment  and  End  of  the  World,  and  the  doctrine  concerning 
Heaven  and  Hell. 

The  plan  of  the  author  is  to  state  and  vindicate  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  on  these  various  subjects, 
and  to  examine  the  antagonistic  doctrines  of  different  classes  of  Theologians.  His  book,  therefore,  is 
intended  to  be  both  didactic  and  elenchtic. 

The  various  topics  are  discussed  with  that  close  and  keen  analytical  and  logical  power,  combined 
with  that  simplicity,  lucidity,  and  strength  of  style  which  have  already  given  Dr.  Hodge  a  world- 
wide reputation  as  a  controversialist  and  writer,  and  as  an  investigator  of  the  great  theological  problems 
of  the  day. 

SPECIAL   NOTICE. 

Volume  I.  of  Dr.  Hodge's  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY  is  no~v  published.  Vol.  II.  will  bt 
ready  ea?-ly  in  Novetnber ;  and  Vol.  III.  is  in  preparation,  and  may  be  expected  early  in  1S72. 
Single  copies  sent  post-paid  on  receipt  of  the  price. 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER   &    CO. 

654    BROADWAY,    NEW    YORK. 


PROSPECTUS 

OF  A 

^^Fologirfll  anil  |^|iIo8op|iral[  3GLibFBFg. 

EDITED   BY 

HENRY  B.  SMITH,  D.D.  and  PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.D. 

PROFESSORS   IN   THE    UNION    THKOLOGICAL   SEMINARY,  NEW  YORK. 


The  undersigned  propose  tx)  publish  a  select  and  compact  Library  of  Text-Books  upon  all  the  main  departments  of 
Theologj'  and  Philosophy,  adapted  to  the  wants  especially  of  ministers  and  students  in  all  denominations. 

Some  of  the  works  will  be  translated  from  the  German  and  other  languages ;  others  will  be  based  upon  treatises  by 
various  authors :  some  will  be  written  for  the  Library  by  English  or  American  scholars.  The  aim  wiU  be  to  furnish  at 
►east  one  condensed  standard  work  on  each  of  the  scientific  divisions  of  Theology  and  Philosophy,  giving  the  results  of 
he  best  critical  investigations,  excluding,  however,  such  histories  and  commentaries  as  extend  through  many  volumes. 


SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

Encyclopaedia  of  Theology  ;  Apologetis ;  a  Collection  of 
the  Creeds  and  Symbols  of  the  Church;  a  Collection  of 
Theological  Definitions  of  Doctrine,  in  the  various  schools 
of  Theology,  on  the  basis  of  Hase,  Luthakdt.  Heppe,  and 
Schweizer;  Symbolics,  or  the  Comparative  Theology  of 
Confessions  of  Faith ;  Polemics,  \vith  particular  reference 
to  the  Roman  Catholic  Controversy ;  Doctrinal  Theology ; 
Christian  Ethics ;  Collections  of  Essays  on  particular  Doc- 
trines. 

HISTORICAL  THEOLOGY. 

Compends  of  Church  History,  and  of  the  History  of  Doc- 
trines ;  Patristics ;  Ecclesiastical  Statistics ;  Jewish  and 
Christian  Archseology ;  Monographs  on  the  History  of  Spe- 
cial Doctrines  or  of  Signal  Epochs. 

This  scheme  is  not  presented  as  final,  but  as  indicating  the  aim  of  the  editors.  If  sufficient  encouragement  be  given, 
no  pains  will  be  spared  to  make  the  project  complete,  and  thus  to  meet  a  great  and  acknowledged  desideratum  in  the 
apparatus  for  study.  On  all  these  topics  every  student  needs,  at  least,  one  good  work.  To  supply  this  will  be  the  aim 
of  our  Library. 

The  various  volumes  will  be  published  in  the  best  style,  on  reasonable  terms,  and  as  rapidly  as  the  nature  of  the  work 
and  the  encouragement  of  the  public  will  allow. 

The  editors  will  be  assisted  by  eminenf  scholars  of  various  denominations,  who  will  respectively  assume  the  hterary 
responsibility  for  the  volumes  prepared  by  themselves  within  the  general  plan  and  aim  of  the  Library. 


BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

Introductions  to  the  Old  and  New  Testaments ;  a  Critical 
Edition  of  the  Greek  New  Testament ;  the  Canon  :  Biblical 
Theology ;  BibUcal  Psychology ;  and  perhaps  a  Grammar 
and  Dictionary  of  the  New  Testament  Greek. 

PRACTICAL  THEOLOGY. 

History  of  Church  Government ;  Canon  Law ;  Homile- 
tics  :  Catechetics ;  Liturgies,  including  Hymnology  :  Pas- 
torial  Theology. 

PHILOSOPHY. 

History  of  PhOosophy  ;  Logic  and  Metaphysics ;  the  Phil- 
osophy of  Nature;  Psychology;  Ethics;  .Slsthetics;  the 
Philosophy  of  Religion ;  the  Philosophy  of  History. 


NOW  READY,  THE  INITIAL  VOLUME 

S|p  Sipologiral  anb  pl^iKosopliirBli  Siitrepg. 

UEBERWEG'S  HISTORY  OF  PHILOSOPHY. 

Vol,  I. — History  of  the  Ancient  and  Mediaeval  Philosophy. 

By  Dr.  Friedrich  Ueberweg.  Translated  from  the  fourth  German  edition,  by  Geo.  S.  Morris,  .^.M.,  with  addi- 
tions by  Noah  Porter,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  President  of  Yale  College,  and  a  general  Introduction  by  the  Editor  of  the  Philo- 
sophical Liljmry.     One  vol.  8vo,  cloth.     §3.50. 

Tfiene  xcarhs  si'.tit.  post-imid.  on  re.ceipt  of  the  price  by  the  Publisher. 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER  &  CO., 

654  Broadway,  New  York, 

PUBLISHERS. 


A  PLAIN  EXPLANATORY  EXPOSITION  OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES 
FOR  EVERY  BIBLE  READER. 

To  be  published  at  regular  intervals  in  royal  octavo  volumes  at  the  uniform 
price  of  $^. OO per  volume. 

THE  HOLY  BIBLE, 

^tcortring  to  tJie  ^uttjori^eH  Ttvsion,  ^-  23.  leu. 

WITH    EXPLANATORY    AND   CRITICAL    NOTES    AND    A 
REVISION   OF   THE   TRANSLATION 

BY  BISHOPS  AND  CLERGYMEN  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

The  BIBLE  COMMENTARY,  the  publication  ol"  which  has  been  commenced,  by  CHARLES  SCRIBNER 
Jk  CO.  simultaneously  with  its  appearance  in  England,  had  its  origin  in  the  widely  felt  want  of  a  plain  explanatory  Com- 
mentary on  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  should  be  at  once  more  comprehensive  and  compact  than  any  now  published. 
Projected  in  1863,  the  selection  of  the  scholars  to  be  employed  upon  it  was  entrusted  to  a  Committee  named  by  the  Speaker 
of  the  British  House  of  Commons  and  the  Archbishop  of  York  (for  the  7tam.es  of  this  Committee  and  list  0/  contributort 
tee  another  page),  and  through  the  agency  of  this  Committee,  there  has  been  concentrated  upon  this  great  work,  a  com- 
bination of  force  such  as  has  not  been  en'isted  in  any  similar  undertaking  in  England,  since  the  translation  of  King  James'* 
version  of  the  Bible.  Of  the  THIRTY-SIX  DIFFERENT  DIVINES  who  are  engaged  upon  the  work,  nearly  all  are 
widely  known  in  this  country  as  well  as  in  England,  for  their  valuable  and  extensive  contributions  to  the  Literature  of  the 
Bible,  and  in  this  Commentary  they  condense  their  varied  learning  and  their  most  matured  judgmenls. 

The  great  object  of  the  BIBLE  COMMENTARY  is  to  put  every  general  reader  and  student  in  full  possession  tA 
whatever  information  may  be  necessary  to  enable  him  to  understand  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  to  give  him,  as  far  as  possib'e, 
the  same  advantages  as  the  Scholar,  and  to  supply  him  with  satisfactory  answers  to  objections  resting  upon  misrepresenta 
tions  or  misinterpretations  of  the  text.  To  secure  this  end  raost  effectually,  the  Comment  is  chiefly  explanatory,  presentmg 
in  a  concise  and  readable  form  the  results  of  learned  investigations  carried  on  during  the  last  half  century.  Wlien  fuller 
discussions  of  difficult  passages  or  important  subjects  are  necessary,  they  are  placed  at  the  end  of  the  chapter  or  volume. 

TiiS  text  is  reprinted  without  alteration,  from  the  Authorized  Version  of  161 1  with  marginal  references  and  renderings : 
but  the  notes  forming  this  Commentary,  will  embody  amended  translations  of  passages  proved  to  be  incorrect  in  that  Version. 

The  work  will  be  divided  into  EIGHT  SECTIONS  which  it  is  expected  will  be  comprised  in  as  many  volumes,  and 
each  volume  will  be  a  royal  octavo.  Typographically  special  pains  has  been  taken  to  adapt  the  work  to  the  use  of  older 
readers  and  students. 

N.  B.  The  American  edition  of  the  Bible  Commentary,  will  be  printed  from  stereo- 
type plates,  duplicated  from  those  upon  which  the  English  edition  is  printed,  and  will  be 
fully  equal  to  that  in  every  respect. 

THE    FIRST   VOLUME   OF 

^^p  PiMp  (Jommpnl^eFB 

IS    NOW    READY,    IT    CONTAINS 

THE     PENTATEUCH, 

The  books  of  which  are  divl'led  as  follows,  among  the  contributors  named  ; 

_p-.p„.„                                                         (  Rt.  Rev.  E.  Harold  Browne,  Bishop  of  Ely,  and 

I  author  of  Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles. 

EXODUS Chap.  I-XIX.  The  Editor. 

"           Chap.  XX.  to  the  End,  and 

LEVITICUS Rev.  Samuel  Clark,  M.  A. 

NUMBERS  AND    DEUTERONOMY.]  ^^^,;J-  Sv^^^giam!^-^".^'^'^''  of  Queen'.  Col- 

Making  one  vol.  royal  8vo,  of  nearly  looo  pages,  being  the  only  complete  Commen- 
tary upon  the  Pentateuch,  in  one  volume,  in  the  English  language.  Price  in  cloth,  $5.00, 
Jess  than  one-half  that  of  the  English  edition. 

OHAELES  SOKIBNEE  &  CO.,  654  Broadway,  ^^w  YorJ* 


TW^O     NEV\^     VOLUMES     OF 

■ — * — • 

Messrs.  Charles  Scribner  &  Co. 

flAVE    THE   GRATIFICATION  OF  ANNOUNCING    THE  PUBLICATION  OF  THR 
LONG  ANTICIPATED  COMMENTARY  UPON 

THE    GOSPEL    OF    JOHN, 

TRANSLATED   AND   EDITED   BY 

Eev.  PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.D.,  assisted  by  E.  R.  CRAVEN,  D*.D.,  and  the  late  E.  D.  YEOMANS,  D.D 


One  \loi  5m,  650  pages,  cloth.  $5.00. 


This  volume  will  universally  be  regarded  as  the  Commentary  of  Commentaries  upon  the  "  Gospel  of  Gospels."  It 
gathers  up  the  results  of  the  latest  research,  and  is,  besides,  enriched  with  the  fruits  of  the  original  labors  of  some  of  the 
first  living  Biblical  Scholars.  Completing  the  Gospels,  it  worthily  finishes  an  important  section  of  what  is  universally  re- 
garded as  the  most  important  Biblical  enterprise  of  the  age. 


ALSO,   JUST  PUBLISHED: 


JEREMIAH. 

Translated  and  edited  by  Rev.  C.  R.  Asburv,  of  Andover,  Mass. 

LAMENTATIONS. 

Translated  and  edited  by  Rev.  Dr.  Hornblower,  of  Paterson,  N.  J.     Under  the  general  editorship  of  Rev.  Dr.  ScHAFit. 
One  vol.  royal  8vo.,  cloth Ss  oo 


The      TEN      VOLUMES      previously      issued      are      in      the 

OLD    TESTAMENT. 

1.— GENESIS.  II.— PROVERBS,  SONG  OF  SOLOMON,  ECCLESIASTES. 

NEW    TESTAMENT. 

I. -MATTHEW.      II.— MARK  AND  LUKE.      III.— ACTS.      IV.— THE  EPISTLE  OF  PAUL  TO  THE 

ROMANS,     v.— CORINTHIANS.     VI.— THESSALONIANS,  TIMOTHY,  TITUS,  PHILEMON, 

AND  HEBREWS.      VII.— GALATIANS,  EPHESIANS,  PHILIPPIANS,  COLOSSIANS. 

VIII.— THE   EPISTLES   GENERAL   OF  JAMES,   PETER,  JOHN,  AND  JUDE. 

Each  one  vol.  8vo.     Price  per  vol.,  in  half  calf,  $7.50  ;  in  sheep,  $6.50  ;  in  cloth,  #s-"o- 
NAMES  AND   DENOMINATIONS  OF   CONTRIBUTORS: 

W.  G.  T.  SHEDD,  D.D.,  Presbyterian.  E.  D.  YEOMANS,  D.D.,  Presbyterian. 

E.  A.  WASHBURNE,  D.D.,  Episcopal.  Rev.  C.  C.  STARBUCK,  Congregational. 

A.  C.  KENDRICK,  D.D.,  Baptist.  J.  ISIDOR  MOMBERT,  D.D.,  Episcopal. 

W.  H.  GREEN,  D.D.,  Presbyterian.  D.  W.  POOR,  D.D.,  Presbyterian. 

J.  F.  HURST,  D.D.,  Methodist.  C.  P.  WING,  D.D.,  Presbyteri.in. 

TAYLER  LEWIS,  LL.D.,  Dutch  Reformed.  GEORGE  E.  DAY,  D.D.,  Congregational. 

Rev.  CH.  F.  SCHAFFER,  Lutheran.  Rev.  P.  H.  S".  CENSTRA,  Episcopal. 

R.  D.  HITCHCOCK,  D.D.,  Presbyterian.  A.  GOSMAN,  D.D.,   Presbyterian. 

E.  HARWOOD,  D.D.,  Episcopal.  Pres't  CHARLES  A.  AIKEN,  D.D.,  Presbyterian. 

H.  B.   HACKETT.  D.D.,  Baptist.  M.  B.  RIDDLE,  D.D.,   Dutch  Reformed. 

JOHN  LILLIE,  D.D.,|>resbyterian.  Prof.  WILLIAM  WELLS,  D.D.,  Methodist. 

Rev.  W.  G.  SUMNER,  Episcopal.  W^.  H.  HORNBLOWER,  D.D.,  Presbyterian. 

^^  Each  volume  of"  LANGE'S  COMMENTARY  ''  is  complete  in  itself,  and  can  be  purchased  separately.     Se»' 
post- paid  to  any  address  upon  receipt,  of  the  price  ($5  per  volume)  by  the  publishers. 


CHAELES  SORIBNER  &  CO.,  654  Broadway,  N.  Y. 


•       • 


•   ,• 


•      • 


^ 


4  • 


*5* 


